This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 11 March 2015, At: 09:31

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Drying Technology: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

Dewatering and Drying Methods for Microalgae

a abc d
Ching-Lung Chen , Jo-Shu Chang & Duu-Jong Lee
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), Tainan,
Taiwan
b
University Center for Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University
(NCKU), Tainan, Taiwan
c
Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University
(NCKU), Tainan, Taiwan
d
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
Accepted author version posted online: 06 Jan 2015.Published online: 22 Jan 2015.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Ching-Lung Chen, Jo-Shu Chang & Duu-Jong Lee (2015) Dewatering and Drying Methods for Microalgae,
Drying Technology: An International Journal, 33:4, 443-454, DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2014.997881

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2014.997881

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Drying Technology, 33: 443–454, 2015
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0737-3937 print=1532-2300 online
DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2014.997881

Dewatering and Drying Methods for Microalgae

Ching-Lung Chen,1 Jo-Shu Chang,1,2,3 and Duu-Jong Lee4
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), Tainan, Taiwan
2
University Center for Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU),
Tainan, Taiwan
3
Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU),
Tainan, Taiwan
4
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015

2. Microalgae can be cultured at sea, in ponds, or in bar-

Microalgae can efficiently fix carbon dioxide through their
phototropic metabolism, and have been recognized as a promising
bioresource for animal feed, health food, fuel, cosmetic, and
pharmaceutical products. However, since microalgae in cultivated
medium have a low biomass concentration (0.1–1% w/w), both
harvesting and concentration of microalgal biomass are often
required prior to the production of commercial products. Efficient
and cost-effective dewatering and drying methods for microalgae
heavily affect the overall energy consumption and production cost
of microalgal products. This review describes the characteristics
of commonly used dewatering and drying technologies, and critically
evaluates the feasibility for their use to treat microalgal biomass.
No single dewatering or drying method can satisfactorily handle
all types of microalgae. The suitability of each method depends on
the properties of the microalgae suspension, the required process
design, the quality of the end product, and the related capital and
production costs.
Keywords Dewatering; Drying; Harvesting; Microalgae
INTRODUCTION
The atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by 148% from
1975 to 2007,[1] and this considered to be the main cause of
global climate change. CO2 capture technologies, such as
chemical absorption, solid adsorption, membrane tech-
nology, cryogenic fractionation, and biological carbon
capture (e.g., using microalgae) have been developed to
address this issue.[2,3] Microalgae have the following
advantages over terrestrial plants:
1. Microalgae can grow in saline or contaminated water,
and have less need for fresh water.
Correspondence: Jo-Shu Chang, Department of Chemical
Engineering, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), No. 1
University Rd., Tainan 70101, Taiwan; E-mail: changjs@mail.ncku.
edu.tw
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/ldrt.
ren regions, and thus engage in less competition with
food crops for arable lands.[4]
3. Microalgae can grow faster than higher plants,[5–7] and
also accumulate oil more efficiently than oilseed crops.[5,8]
4. Microalgae can also produce valuable co-products (e.g.,
proteins, pigments, unsaturated fatty acids, carotenoids,
and vitamin),[9,10] which are then used as raw materials
in the animal feed, food, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical
industries.
5. Microalgae can convert CO2 into biomass with a high
efficiency of CO2 utilization.[11,12] In general, 1 kg dry
microalgal biomass is produced at the consumption of
1.83 kg CO2.[5]
Although using microalgae as the raw materials for bio-
fuels and bio-based chemicals has numerous advantages
over the use of higher plants, there are still a number of
drawbacks. For example, the harvesting of microalgal bio-
mass from dilute microalgae culture is very difficult, due to
the low biomass concentration in microalgae broth (e.g.,
0.6 g=L)[13]; the small size of cells (<20 mm); nearly neutral
buoyancy of cells (density ¼ 1.08–1.13 g=mL); and strongly
negative surface charge.[14] In addition, the water content
remaining in the microalgal biomass could cause problems
in downstream processing and product isolation or conver-
sion. For example, the presence of high water content in
the microalgal biomass may have negative effects on the
extraction of oil or non-polar components (e.g., carote-
noids and omega-3 fatty acids) and transesterification of
microalgal oil to biodiesel. As a result, drying or dewater-
ing of microalgae to an appropriately low water content
may be necessary to obtain target products from microal-
gae in an efficient manner. Harvesting technologies for
microalgae include flocculation, sedimentation, flotation,
filtration, and centrifugation, as well as combinations of
these. However, there is no all-purpose harvesting method

443
 444 CHEN ET AL.
that is able to treat all microalgae suspensions under
consideration of both cost and energy consumption.[15,16]
In addition, although harvesting can result in a 50- to
200-fold concentration of algal biomass, the moisture in
the harvested biomass slurry is still high enough to spoil
the slurry within a few hours at room temperature.[17] A
drying process is thus often needed to convert the slurry
into a stable, storable form.[13]
MICROALGAL HARVESTING AND DEWATERING
Flocculation is used in drinking water and wastewater
treatment to increase the size of particles by a process of
aggregation,[15] in order to ease the application of sub-
sequent sedimentation or flotation.[18] Flocculation can
help separate microalgae from large quantities of the sus-
pension, and the process has been adapted for use with a
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
wide range of microalgae,[15] making it one of the most
popular technologies for microalgae dewatering.
Chemical Flocculation
The major mechanism of flocculation is neutralization of
the charge on the surface of the microalgae.[19] Adding
cations with þ3 charge, such as aluminum sulfate
(Al2(SO4)3) and poly aluminum chloride (PAC), can effec-
tively neutralize the negative charge of microalgae
cells.[20–22] For example, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, with
a cell density of 3.11  0.09  106 cells=mL and minimal
dewatering efficiency by sedimentation over 1 week, can
be flocculated by Al2(SO4)3 (82.6%) and PAC (66.6%) with
a dose of 0.27 kg flocculant per kg of algae (dry weight).[23]
Chlorella vulgaris, with a zeta potential of about 20 mV,
can be flocculated and settled within 10 min under a PAC
dose of 0.18 g=g, giving a flocculation efficiency of over
90%.[20] However, flocculation with multivalent metal salts
will contaminate the algal biomass, thus complicating
downstream processing.[24] For example, when using
lipid-laden C. vulgaris biomass as the oil feedstock for direct
transesterification catalyzed by an immobilized lipase, the
catalytic ability of the lipase is completely inhibited by the
residual PAC present in harvested algal biomass.[20]
Polymeric flocculants, both natural (e.g., polysaccharides)
and synthetic (e.g., polyacrylamide), can achieve satisfactory
dewatering of microalgal biomass. However, a higher dosage
of natural flocculants might be required to achieve satisfac-
tory flocculation performance compared to synthetic floccu-
lants, since the former have lower molecular weights and
shorter shelf lives.[25] In contrast, the cationic polymers can
assist in the flocculation of algal biomass, based on both
charge neutralization and the bridging mechanism. More-
over, the molecular weights of these types of polymers are
high, and thus they have a greater flocculation efficiency than
natural polymers.[26] However, some cationic polyacryla-
mides are less effective than the traditional flocculants, such
as Al3þ or Fe3þ, with regard to microalgae harvesting.[27]
Chitosan, which is generated by deacetylation of chitin,
is a naturally hydrophilic polymer with positive charge.[28]
Because of its unique combination of properties, including
biodegradability, biocompatibility, renewability, bioactiv-
ity, ecological acceptability, and attractive physical=
mechanical properties,[29] chitosan is regarded an impor-
tant biopolymer with a variety of applications.[22,29–42]
Compared with the traditional flocculants, such as polya-
crylamides, alum, Al2(SO4)3, FeCl3, and PAC, chitosan
can achieve the same or better flocculation efficiency at a
lower dose.[22,33,40] Furthermore, the production of biodie-
sel from chitosan-flocculated microalgae by lipase catalytic
transesterification can compete with that from the centri-
fuged microalgae, indicating that chitosan is nontoxic
and causes no harm to the subsequent processes. However,
the drawback of chitosan is its high cost, as the cost of
flocculation with chitosan is 21.7 times that of PAC floccu-
lation under the cheapest operating conditions.[40]
In addition to chitosan, there are other natural floccu-
lants, such as starch and its derivatives. Starch-based floc-
culants are widely used in microalgae harvesting and
dewatering,[43–48] because they are cheap and there is wide
range to choose from. Compared with the traditional floc-
culants, such Al2(SO4)3 and FeCl3, starch-based floccu-
lants have less efficiency with regard to the harvesting of
most microalgae strains.[47,48] However, the cell density of
the floc formed by starch-based flocculants is higher than
that achieve with the traditional flocculants.[45,47] More-
over, using starch-harvested microalgae as feedstock has
been shown to produce better performance in the follow-up
downstream processes, such as fermentation, lipid
extraction, and in situ transesterification.[45]
The sedimentation of most microalgae is considered as
free-settling, except for those microalgae that coagulate
by themselves, because the biomass concentration of the
microalgae suspension is too low for the cells to interfere
with each other. Stokes’ Law, which assumes that sedimen-
tation velocity is proportional to the square of the radius of
the microalgae and the density difference between the
microalgae and the medium, is thus used to describe the
behavior of the microalgae in sedimentation. The Stokes’
Law equation is as follows:
2 ðqs  ql Þ 2
Settling velocity ¼ gr
9 g
where qs and ql are the solid and liquid densities, respect-
ively, g is medium dynamic viscosity, and r is the microal-
gal cell radius. According to Stokes’ Law, the expected
settling velocity of Chlorella sp., which is nearly spherical,
is 0.1 m=day.[49] In practice, however, there are too many
influential factors, such as type of species, shape, surface
charge, suspension pH, and medium composition, to affect
the rate of microalgae settling. For example, the settling
 DEWATERING AND DRYING METHODS FOR MICROALGAE
rate for Chlorella sp. is 3.575 m=day.[50] In addition, the
predicted settling velocity of Cyclotella sp., which has a
similar size to Chlorella sp., is 0.04 m=day, but the observed
velocity is 0.16 m=day.[51] While it is a good thing if the
actual settling velocity of microalgae is faster than the
predicted one, in most case they are very reluctant to
settle.[52] For example, sedimentation of diatom Phaeodac-
tylum tricornutum is poor, as it tends to resist settling no
matter what conditions its suspension is kept in.[22] The
examples noted above suggest that it is difficult to directly
achieve microalgae dewatering by free settling.
Flocculation is thus a routine procedure before to
increase the settling velocity of microalgae.[53] Traditional
flocculants, such as FeCl3, Al2(SO4)3, and alum, are used
to coagulate Scenedesmus sp. at doses of 0.15, 0.3 and
0.3 g=L, respectively. These can achieve a flocculation
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
efficiency of over 95% in a relatively short time, with FeCl3
able to achieve this efficiency in only 2 min.[33] PAC is used
to assist flocculation and sedimentation of Chlorella sp.
When using a dose of 1.49 mg-PAC [as aluminum (Al)]=
L, the microalgae suspension with a turbidity of 200
NTU (i.e., 9.7  107 cell=mL of Chlorella sp.) fell from
200 NTU to 3 NTU with only a settling time of only
300 s. The optimal PAC dosage for freshwater Spirulina
sp. suspension is 43.2 mg-PAC (as Al)=L, and the corre-
sponding residual turbidity values after settling for 300 s,
600 s, and 1 h are only 7.4, 4.3, and 1.6 NTU, respect-
ively.[54] Tetraselmis suecica, which can settle itself by about
30% within 15 minutes, but then re-disperse after 1 hour, is
used to examine the influence of Al2(SO4)3 and Fe2(SO4)3
on flocculation and sedimentation. Three mg=L of
Fe2(SO4)3 enables about 95% settling of Tetraselmis suecica
in 5 min, and the dose of Al2(SO4)3 needed to achieve the
same result within 5 min is 4 mg=L.[27]
When Chlorella sp., which has an average size of
3–5 mm, is flocculated by chitosan, the size of the floc can
increase to about 180 mm, and the settling time decreases
as this rises. For example, when the floc size increases to
30 mm, the settling time is 30 min. As the size further
increases to about 180 mm, the settling time decreases to
less than 10 min.[30] The dose of chitosan needed to achieve
flocculation efficiency of over 95% within 10 minutes by
coagulation, and sedimentation is just 0.08 g=L.[33] When
Phaeodactylum tricornutum is coagulated by chitosan at
the optimal conditions of pH 9.9 and 0.18 g-chitosan=
g-dry biomass, the flocculation efficiency achieves 91.8%
in a settling time of 30 min.
Electro-Flocculation
Electro-flocculation is a mature technology in waste-
water treatment, which has the advantages of easy
operation, low chemical usage, and no residual anions (e.g.,
chloride and sulfate) remaining in the solution. Electro-
flocculation has thus become a key alternative to conventional
445
flocculation processes.[55] Since the microalgal aggregates
yielded by the electro-flocculation process are usually
accompanied by small microbubbles generated from metal
anodes, the most commonly used method for collecting
the resulting aggregates is flotation.[56]
The operational factors in this process include the
electrode material, electrolysis voltage, current density,
electrolysis time, and the other properties, such as pH
and the composition of the microalgae suspension. The dis-
persion destabilization effect of the microalgae suspension
by electro-flocculation with an aluminum electrode is much
better than that with an iron electrode.[55,57] The floccu-
lation efficiency rises along with the energy consumption,
which increases due to the addition of electrolysis voltage
or the current.[22,57,58] Moreover, the flocculation efficiency
also increases with the reaction time. An earlier study
reported that the operational cost of electro-flocculation
for Tetraselmis sp. is low (ca. $0.19=kg-dry biomass), with
a potential capacity of 5.748  107 kg per year.[59]
Bio-Flocculation
Bio-flocculants can be products from bacteria,[60–62]
microalgae,[63,64] and fungi.[65–68] The bio-flocculants, of
which the major components are carbohydrates, proteins,
humic substances, nucleic acids, lipids, and surfactants
from bacteria, are defined as capsular, slime, loosely
bound, and tightly bound on the basis of the nature of their
association with the cells or the method used to extract=
separate them from the bacterial cells.[69] Bacterial
bio-flocculants have been widely used in applications
related to water treatment, wastewater flocculation and
settling, sludge dewatering, metal removal or recovery,
removal of toxic organic compounds, landfill leachate
treatment, and soil remediation and reclamation.[69] Some
of the bacterial bio-flocculants used for wastewater treat-
ment can also be used for the harvesting of microalgae,
such as Botryococcus braunii, Scenedesmus quadricauda,
Selenastrum capricornutum, and C. vulgaris. The results
show that bio-flocculants have considerable potential,[62]
and are more effective with regard to microalgae floccu-
lation than chemical flocculants (e.g., Al2(SO4)3 and
polyacrylamide).[61] However, the problem with bacterial
bio-flocculants is the high costs for purification, which
consists of centrifugation at low temperature and solvent
washing. It is thus important to establish a low cost
purification method for bioflocculants.
Another type of bio-flocculation is using self-flocculating
microalgae (e.g., Ankistrodesmus falcatus, Scenedesmus
obliquus, Tetraselmis suecica, and C. vulgaris) to concen-
trate the target non-flocculating microalgae.[63,70] The
advantage of this method is its low energy consumption,[63]
but the best flocculation efficiency is only around 72%.[64,70]
On the other hand, the purified polysaccharides from
C. vulgaris are an effective bio-flocculant, which result in
 446 CHEN ET AL.

TABLE 1
Harvesting efficiency of microalgal biomass using chemical flocculation methods
Microalgae species Flocculant pH Flocculant dosea Flocculation efficiency (%) Reference
Chaetoceros calcitrans Chitosan 8.0 0.08 g=g-DW 80 [29]
Chaetoceros muelleri Chitosan 8.0 0.15 g=g-DW 95 [29]
Chlorella Chitosan 7.0 0.005 g=g-DW 90 [29]
Chlorella consortium Chitosan 0.025 g=g-DW 58  8 [29]
Chlorella sorokiniana Chitosan 6.0 0.01 g=g-DW 99 [29]
0.025 g=g-DW 30  11
Chlorella sp. Chitosan 0.01 g=g-DW 99.0  0.4 [29]
Chlorella vulgaris Chitosan 8.7 0.20 g=g-DW 99.7 [29]
0.03 g=g-DW 92
C. vulgaris Chitosan 0.08 g=g-DW 75 [38]
0.04 g=g-DW 95
0.08 g=g-DW 70
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015

0.25 g=g-DW 9
0.02 g=g-DW 80
0.10 g=g-DW 20
0.08 g=g-DW 86
0.12 g=g-DW 99
C. vulgaris and Microcystis sp. Chitosan 0.214 g=g-DW 91.9 [29]
Chlorococcum sp. Al2(SO4)3 9.56–8.71 0.0096 g=g-DW 90.7 [27]
Fe2(SO4)3 9.73–9.13 0.0074 g=g-DW 97.3
Dunaliella tertiolecta Al2(SO4)3 8.86–6.90 0.033 g=g-DW 98.3 [27]
Fe2(SO4)3 8.86–7.15 0.081 g=g-DW 98.2
Isochrysis galbana Al2(SO4)3 9.25–5.25 0.068 g=g-DW 93.1 [27]
Fe2(SO4)3 9.44–8.41 0.12 g=g-DW 60.1
Nannochloropsis salina Al2(SO4)3 9.84–6.94 0.048 g=g-DW 87.5 [27]
Fe2(SO4)3 9.89–8.92 0.048 g=g-DW 97.5
Zetag 7570 0.048 g=g-DW 10.9
Nannochloropsis sp. Chitosan 9.0 0.1 g=g-DW 92 [29]
Neochloris oleoabundans Chitosan 0.10 g=g-DW 95 [29]
Pavlova lutheri Chitosan 8.0 0.08 g=g-DW 80 [29]
Phaeodactylum tricornutum Chitosan 9.9 0.02 g=g-DW 92 [29]
Scenedesmus costatum Chitosan 7.0 0.002 g=g-DW 95-100 [29]
Scenedesmus obliquus Chitosan 0.025 g=g-DW 20  15 [29]
Scenedesmus obliquus Chitosan 0.025 g=g-DW 20  15 [29]
Scenedesmus quadricauda Chitosan 8.0 0.01 g=g-DW 90 [29]
Synechocystis Chitosan 7.0 0.015 g=g-DW >90 [29]
Tahitian Isochrysis Chitosan 8.0 0.04 g=g-DW 90 [29]
Tetraselmis chui Chitosan 8.0 0.04 g=g-DW 80 [29]
Tetraselmis suecica Al2(SO4)3 8.76–7.96 0.0087 g=g-DW 97.5 [27]
Fe2(SO4)3 8.78–8.45 0.0058 g=g-DW 98.7
Zetag 7570 8.71–8.66 0.0099 g=g-DW 92.4
Thalassiosira pseudonana Chitosan 8.0 0.04 g=g-DW 90 [29]
Phaeodactylum tricornutum Al2(SO4)3 7.5 0.27 g=g-DW 66.6 [22]
PAC 5.9 0.27 g=g-DW 83.6
Chitoasn 9.9 0.18 g=g-DW 91.8
a
The dose of flocculants based on the drying weight of microalgae biomass.

good flocculation efficiency for C. vulgaris and S. obliquus, about 85% per hour flocculation efficiency can be obtained
which are non-flocculating strains. Using this approach, with a flocculating agent dose of as low as 0.5 mg=L.[70]
 DEWATERING AND DRYING METHODS FOR MICROALGAE 447

TABLE 2
Harvesting efficiency of microalgal biomass using electro-flocculation and bio-flocculation methods
Flocculation Microalgae Flocculant= Electro-flocculation timea= Flocculation
method species anode pH Bio-flocculants dose efficiency (%) Reference
Electro-flocculation Chlorella Aluminium 8.0 30 min 92 [58]
vulgaris electrode (current density ¼ 3 mA=cm2)
Phaeodactylum Aluminium 8.0 20 min 78 [58]
tricornutum electrode (current density ¼ 3 mA=cm2)
Tetraselmis sp. Aluminium 60 sec 85 [59]
electrode 60 sec 95
30 sec (current ¼ 9.9 A) 92
Bio-flocculation C. vulgaris Paenibacillus 20 mL=L-suspensionb 83 [61]
sp. AM49
C. vulgaris Chlorella JSC-7=CNW11 ¼ 1=5 (v=v)d 34.8 [70]
CNW11 vulgaris JSC-7 JSC-7=CNW11 ¼ 1=2 (v=v)d 68.2
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015

C. vulgaris Aspergillus 7.6  10E6=L-solc 100 [66]

flavus
Aspergillus 80.3
niger
Aspergillus 100
versicolor
Aerococcus 93.7
viridans
Leucogyrophana 100
arizonica
Scenedesmus Chlorella JSC-7=FSP ¼ 1=5 (v=v)d 41.2 [70]
obliquus FSP vulgaris JSC-7 JSC-7=FSP ¼ 1=2 (v=v)d 62.7
a
The electro-flocculation time.
b
The added volume of bacterial broth based on the volume of the microalgae suspension.
c
The concentration of spores in the solution consisting of the culture medium and microalgae seed broth.
d
The volume ratio of the spontaneous microalgae suspension to the non-flocculating microalgae suspension.

The other bio-flocculation approach is to utilize filamen-
tous fungi, such as Aspergillus sp. and Cunninghamella echi-
nulatato.[65–68] The process of pelletization that occurs by
co-cultivation of microalgae with fungi enables almost
the complete removal of microalgae from the liquid
medium. Moreover, the cell pellets can be directly har-
vested using a sieve due to their large size. Furthermore,
the yields of the biomass, lipid, and other bioproducts
increase significantly when Cunninghamella echinulatato is
used as the bio-flocculant.[65] The drawback of this method
is the long co-culture time of over two days. Tables 1 and 2
summarize the details of settling using different floccu-
lation methods, as reported in the literature.
FLOTATION
Flotation is another common method to assist in the
harvesting of microalgal flocs, and the approaches used
can be classified as dissolved air flotation, electrolytic
flotation, and dispersed air flotation.[13] Dissolved air
flotation utilizes high pressure to dissolve air into water,
and then fine bubbles with an average size of 40 mm are
produced in the suspension because of the release of press-
ure.[71] Electrolytic flotation combines electro-flocculation
and bubble production from the anode (O2) and cathode
(H2). However, the bubble production is sometimes not
intensive enough to efficiently float the cells. Dispersed
air flotation utilizes agitation combined with air injection
(froth flotation) or bubbling air through a porous media
(foam flotation) to produce large bubbles with a size of
about 1 mm.
The factors that influence the flotation efficiency include
the type of collector (surfactant or flocculant), pH and
ionic strength in the medium, and the type of bubble
formation. Three surfactants, such as cationic N-cetyl-
N,N,N-trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), anionic
sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS), and the nonionic Triton
X-100, have been used for flotation of Scenedesmus quadri-
cauda. Under the natural pH of the microalgae suspen-
sions, the removal efficiency by CTAB can reach 90%
when the flotation time is longer than 600 s, whereas the
 448 CHEN ET AL.
removal efficiencies of SDS or X-100 remain poor, even
when the flotation time is as long as 1200s. However, the
removal efficiencies of these two surfactants can be
improved by the addition of chitosan or pH adjustment,
which neutralizes the charge, giving over 90% removal
within 400 s.[32] Flocculation with Al2(SO4)3, Fe2(SO4)3,
and chitosan is used as a pretreatment for concentration
of Tetraselmis sp. by dissolved air floatation. Under the
optimal conditions of 1.2 g=L and pH 5–6 for Al2(SO4)3,
0.7 g=L and pH 4–8 for Fe2(SO4)3, and 5.0 mg=mL and
pH 7–8 for chitosan, all highest efficiencies can be over
90%, except for that with Fe2(SO4)3. A freshwater microal-
gae, Chlorella sp., was compared with a marine microalga,
Tetraselmis sp., with regard to C14TAB-assisted flotation.
The ionic strength of the flotation medium influences
the flotation efficiency, which results in a recovery of
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
Chlorella sp. that is greater than 95% at 4 min of flotation
time, while that of Tetraselmis sp. is only about 80%
even if the flotation time is 6 min.[71] The time required
to concentrate Botryococcus braunii by electrolytic
flotation to achieve the removal efficiency of 93.6%
is 30 min, although this can be reduced to 14 min by
combining dispersed-air flotation and electrolytic flota-
tion to enhance the flotation efficiency. The removal
efficiency of this modified flotation approach reached
as high as 98.9%.[55]
FILTRATION
Filter press operation under pressure or a vacuum, such
as seen with a chamber filter press or a rotary drum
vacuum=pressure filter, can recover relatively large-sized
microalgae, such as Coelastrum proboscideum and Spirulina
platensis. Moreover, using diatomaceous earth or cellulose
as a pre-coated layer can promote the filtration efficiency of
a rotary drum filter, and thus enable it to recover more
microalgal biomass.[72] However, it is difficult to separate
the pre-coated layer from the recovered microalgae, which
limits the utilization of the dewatered biomass obtained
with this process.
Membrane filters are often used for microalgal recovery.
Microfiltration membranes can meet the needs of cell har-
vesting for small-sized microalgae species (2–40 mm).[18,72]
The energy consumption of cross-flow microfiltration for
concentrations of microalgae cells from 0.06% to 8.88%
is only 2.06 kWh=m3, but this increases to 14.81 kWh=m3
when using polymer flocculation to concentrate the
microalgal biomass from 0.042% to 15%.[73]
The operational factors in cross-flow microfiltration
include the pore size, cross-flow velocity, and transmem-
brane pressure. The permeation flux increases along with
the increase in cross-flow velocity from 1 m=s to 2.5 m=
s.[74,75] The problem of membrane fouling can be reduced
in cross-flow microfiltration with the use of flow turbulence
and shear force on the membrane surface.[76]
The dynamic microfiltration process is used for the
harvesting of microalgae.[77,78] The pore size, rotational
velocity, and transmembrane pressure (TMP) all affect
the permeability in this form of filtration, while the type
of membrane also directly affects the permeability and
rejection of the solute. A ceramic membrane is more suit-
able for the recovery of microalgae than polymeric ones,[77]
with TMP and the rotational speed being the important
operational factors in this microfiltration system. An
increase in TMP can slightly promote the permeation flux,
but also increases the degree of fouling. On the other hand,
an increase in the shear stress over the membrane by
increasing the rotational speed can reduce both fouling
and concentration polarization.[77,78] Dynamic filtration
is not only more efficient with regard to microalgae
harvesting, but also more economic than cross-flow=
tangential microfiltration.[78]
Ultrafiltration is another possible alternative for
microalgae harvesting, with Scenedesmus quadricauda
being harvested by a cross-flow ultrafiltration system, and
the resulting harvesting efficiency and average flux of being
46.01 g=m2-h and 45.50 L=m2-h, respectively.[79] Moreover,
the concentration of Arthrospira platensis suspension
concentrated by cross-flow ultrafiltration can increases
from 50 mg=L to 1 g=L.[80] The permeation flux of
cross-flow ultrafiltration is the same or even higher as that
seen with microfiltration, as the microalgae suspension
is actually concentrated by the two systems.[73,76]
CENTRIFUGATION
Centrifugation utilizes centrifugal force to replace grav-
ity for the separation of microalgae from the suspension.[81]
The harvesting efficiency depends on the settling character-
istics of the microalgae, the retention time of the slurry in
the centrifuge (which is controlled by the flow rate), and
the settling depth, which can be kept small through the
design of the centrifuge. For example, harvesting efficien-
cies of >95%, 60%, and 40% were obtained at 13,000 g,
6,000 g, and 1,300 g, respectively, using nine different
microalgae strains for the centrifugation tests.[82]
The common types of centrifuges include disc stack,
decanter (also known as a solid bowl centrifuge), and
hydro-cyclones.[72,81] Among these, hydro-cyclones have
the lowest energy consumption,[72] although an efficiency
of only 0.4% solid content with a concentration factor of
4, which is the worst among all three technologies.[72] The
disc stack centrifuge applies a force that ranges from
4,000–14,000 g, and is ideally suitable for the separation
of microalgae with particle sizes between 3 mm and 30 mm
and concentrations between 0.02% and 0.05%.[81] Because
a disc stack centrifuge can separate materials with different
densities into several thin layers, it can separate not only
solid=liquid, but also liquid=liquid or liquid=liquid=solid
on a continuous basis.[83] Compared with a disc stack
 DEWATERING AND DRYING METHODS FOR MICROALGAE
centrifuge, a decanter centrifuge has a lower microalgae
recovery efficiency, but can provide a more concentrated
output,[81] although it consumers more energy.[72]
Although centrifugation can be successfully applied to
microalgal harvesting, it still has some disadvantages.
These include the following:
1. The cell structure may be destroyed under the high
gravitational and shear forces.
2. The treatment time for a large amount of microalgae
suspension is tediously long, and sometimes costly
equipment, such as a continuous centrifuge, is required.[84]
3. The energy consumption and capital cost of centrifuga-
tion are also very high.[15]
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
DRYING
After microalgae dewatering processes have been carried
out, the dry solid content of the biomass slurry is still
low.[85] Therefore, a drying process, such as solar drying,
convective drying, spray drying, and freeze drying, is
usually needed, depending on the requirement of the final
products.[18,86,87]
Solar Drying
Solar drying is the cheapest method, but it requires long
drying times and a large drying surface.[18] Moreover, it is
difficult to maintain the quality of the end product with
traditional open solar drying methods, and the slow drying
rate due to a low temperature can cause biomass degradati-
on and thus a rise in the bacterial count.[88] Some closed
solar drying devices can raise the environmental tempera-
ture from 35 C to 60 C, and the moisture in the end
product is less than 10% within 3–5 h of drying.[88]
Although the quality of the dry biomass yielded from open
solar drying methods may not be stable, it seems to have no
significant influence on some of the following processes,
such as oil extraction, when compared with oven drying
and freeze drying.[89,90]
Convective Drying
Convective drying, which is also a popular process for
microalgae dehydration, is commonly performed by a type
of convective hot air drying, such as oven drying.[87,88,90–93]
The optimal temperature range for Spirulina sp. using this
method is 40–55 C,[91,92] and the phycocyanin loss percent-
age is about 37%. Moreover, the fatty acid composition of
the resulting dry biomass is not significantly different to
that in fresh biomass.
Although there is no significant difference in the oil yield
between convective and solar dried biomass, the drying
efficiency of the former is substantially better than the lat-
ter,[90] and the content of free fatty acids (FFAs) in the oil
extracted from convective dried biomass is almost as much
449
as that obtained with freeze drying. In contrast, the FFAs
content in the oil extracted from microalgae dried in natu-
ral sunlight was three times higher than that from microal-
gae subjected to freeze drying.[89] It is known that the
presence of FFAs could decrease the efficiency of transes-
terification when using alkaline catalysts (such as NaOH)
due to the saponification effect. Hence, sunlight drying
may not be a suitable process for biodiesel production from
microalgae.
Spray Drying
Spray drying is the preferred method of drying high
value micro-algal products, and can produce a dark green
powder of dry microalgae,[81] with the aspect and color of
the powder being highly dependent on the spray drying
process and temperature.[87] Compared with convective
drying, the products yielded by spray drying can retain
more nutrients, with the former process seeing a 10–20%
loss in proteins.
Compared with freeze drying, the microalgal biomass
treated by spray drying is less susceptible to lipolysis
upon storage, but the carotenoids in spray-dried micro-
algae oxidize more readily than those in freeze-dried
microalgae.[94]
Freeze Drying
Like spray drying, freeze drying is widely used in the
food industry,[81] as well as in much research, because all
the cell constituents are preserved without rupturing the
cell wall.[90] Compared with convective drying, infrared
drying, and spray drying, freeze drying keeps the most
amount of proteins in dry microalgae biomass, with the
protein loss being below 10%.[95] In addition, a small change
in the operational factor of the freeze drying process may
have significant effects on the cell disruption efficiency.
For example, when samples freeze slowly, larger intracellu-
lar ice crystals form, causing disruption of the cell wall.[96]
Other Drying Technologies
Roller=drum drying is a mature technology that is often
used in the food industry.[81] When roller=drum drying is
used for algae, especially for Scenedesmus sp., sterilizing
of the samples and disruption of the cell wall can be
achieved simultaneously.[97,98]
Fluidized-bed drying is a common method to dry par-
ticulate materials, such as grain and fruits,[99] due to its
excellent heat and mass transfer efficiencies, short drying
time, high quality of products, and short reconstitution
time.[100] When fluidized-bed drying is used to dry the
microalgae Dunaliella salina, the total carotenoid loss is
between 13% and 20%, which is lower than that seen with
spray drying of Spirulina sp.[101]
 450
FINDING SUITABLE PROCESSES FOR MICROALGAE
DEWATERING AND DRYING
The selection of an appropriate dewatering method or
drying technology for microalgae is highly dependent on
the properties of the microalgae suspension (e.g., content
of target component, cell size, shape and surface charge,
salt concentration, pH, etc.), the subsequent downstream
processes used for the isolation and conversion of final
products, and the acceptable cost with regard to producing
the target products. Some valuable components in micro-
algae, such as C-phycocyanin, lutein, and astaxanthin, are
precious and easily damaged or degraded by heat, light, or
oxidation. In such cases it might be necessary to use more
delicate (and usually more expensive) drying technologies,
such as freeze drying or spray drying, to process microalgae
for high-value products.[102–109] Microalgae-containing
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
target components [such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA),
docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid
(DHA)] that are more resistant to the downstream proces-
sing conditions and are able to tolerate extraction tempera-
tures of 60 C to 105 C,[110–114] can be dewatered by
centrifugation or membrane filtration, and dried by spray
or convective drying to decrease the operational cost.
However, when the microalgae are used for biofuel pro-
duction and fermentation, low-cost dewatering consisting
of flocculation and solid–liquid separation (e.g., sedimen-
tation and flotation) and a low-cost drying method (e.g.,
solar drying and convective drying) are more suitable. It
is worth noting that the cell harvesting and dewatering=
drying methods used should avoid causing microalgae
FIG. 1. The processes of microalgae dewatering and drying for different end products. aChitosan was used as a flocculant; bstarch and its derivatives;
c
self-flocculating microalgal strains; dFe3þ=Al3þ salts and polymers; eoil-rich fungi; fthe carbon resource of the fermentation is reducing sugars derived
from microalgal biomass.
CHEN ET AL.
spoilage or inhibition of downstream processing. For
example, when the microalgae are harvested and concen-
trated with some chemical flocculants, such as Al2(SO4)3,
FeCl3, and PAC, the base catalysts for transesterification
of microalgal oil to biodiesel could be inactivated.
Figure 1 shows a simplified flow chart for the choice of
dewatering and drying methods for microalgae.
Moreover, the water content present in the microalgae
feedstock usually has negative effects on the one-step direct
transesterification of the wet microalgae. The process of
transesterification is greatly inhibited when the water content
is higher than a certain threshold level.[115,116] Our recent
work[117] showed that by using immobilized lipase as
a catalyst, biodiesel could be produced from wet microalgal
biomass (water content ¼ 71%) at a high conversion rate of
97%. Although there are some examples in the literature
showing that wet microalgal biomass with high water content
can be used for oil extraction or for direct transesterification
to produce biodiesel, most such cases were conducted under
a large solvent=sample ratio, with strict reaction conditions.
The processes involving the use of wet microalgal biomass
as the starting material might thus be difficult or costly to
scale up, and so at present, dried microalgae are still a better
feedstock for biodiesel production. Similar conclusions can be
made when the target products of microalgae are non-polar
compounds, such as carotenoids, omega-3 fatty acids, and
so forth. However, in the case of protein or carbohydrate
production from microalgae, since they are water soluble,
the drying requirement would be low and the dewatering pro-
cess could be considered as a viable step for cell concentration.
 DEWATERING AND DRYING METHODS FOR MICROALGAE
CONCLUSIONS
A combination of flocculation and sedimentation pro-
vides a low cost dewatering method for microalgae that is
better than flotation, filtration, and centrifugation. How-
ever, the flocculant and moisture in the concentrated slurry
will have an influence on the subsequent processes, such as
increasing the energy consumption needed during drying
and inhibiting the work of the enzymes and bacterial fer-
mentation. Conversely, centrifugation has high capital
and operation costs, but can yield a highly concentrated
product. Therefore, determination of the appropriate
dewatering method depends on the properties of the micro-
algae suspension, the follow-up downstream processes, and
cost considerations. Similar conclusions can be applied to
the choice of drying process. Solar drying is cheap, but it
requires a large area. Convective drying and spray drying
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
may change the compositions of the microalgae products,
but can be applied in mass operations. Freeze drying can
preserve the nutrients and structure of microalgae, but
the operational cost is high. Therefore, the forms of and
markets for the end products, as well as the related cost
constraints, all affect the choice of drying process.
FUNDING
This work was supported by Taiwan’s Ministry of Science
and Technology [Grant Number MOST103-3113-E-006-
006] and Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs [Grant
Number of 102-D0613].
REFERENCES
1. Jana, P.K.; Saha, I. Correlation of green house molecules with global
and surface temperature and its effect on environment. Indian
Journal of Physics 2011, 85(5), 667–682.
2. Lam, M.K.; Lee, K.T.; Mohamed, A.R. Current status and
challenges on microalgae-based carbon capture. International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control 2012, 10, 456–469.
3. Koberg, M.; Cohen, M.; Ben-Amotz, A.; Gedanken, A. Bio-diesel
production directly from the microalgae biomass of Nannochloropsis
by microwave and ultrasound radiation. Bioresource Technology
2011, 102, 4265–4269.
4. Rubin, E.S.; Mantripragada, H.; Marks, A.; Versteeg, P.; Kitchin, J.
The outlook for improved carbon capture technology. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science 2012, 38, 630–671.
5. Chisti, Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances 2007,
25(3), 294–306.
6. Metting, F.B. Biodiversity and application of microalgae. Journal of
Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 1996, 17(5–6), 477–489.
7. Spolaore, P.; Joannis-Cassan, C.; Duran, E.; Isambert, A.
Commercial applications of microalgae. Journal of Bioscience and
Bioengineering 2006, 101(2), 87–96.
8. Schenk, P.M.; Thomas-Hall, S.R.; Stephens, E.; Marx, U.C.;
Mussgnug, J.H.; Posten, C.; Kruse, O.; Hankamer, B. Second gener-
ation biofuels: high-efficiency microalgae for biodiesel production.
BioEnergy Research 2008, 1(1), 20–43.
9. Scott, S.A.; Davey, M.P.; Dennis, J.S.; Horst, I.; Howe, C.J.;
Lea-Smith, D.J.; Smith, A.G. Biodiesel from algae: Challenges and
prospects. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2010, 21, 277–286.
451
10. Spolaore, P.; Joannis-Cassan, C.; Duran, E.; Isambert, A.
Commercial applications of microalgae. Journal of Bioscience and
Bioengineering 2006, 101(2), 87–96.
11. Khan, S.; Rashmi; Hussain, M.Z.; Prasad, S.; Banerjee, U.C. Prospects
of biodiesel production from microalgae in India. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009, 13, 2361–2372.
12. Li, Y.; Horsman, M.; Wu, N.; Lan, C.Q.; Dubois-Calero, N.
Biofuels from microalgae. Biotechnology Progress 2008, 24, 815–820.
13. Shelef, G.; Sukenik, A.; Green, M. Microalgae harvesting and
processing: A literature review. NREL Report No. STR-231-2396,
Technion Research and Development Foundation, 1984.
14. Park, J.B.K.; Craggs, R.J.; Shilton, A.N. Wastewater treatment high
rate algal ponds for biofuel production. Bioresource Technology
2011, 102, 35–42.
15. Mata, T.M.; Martins, A.A.; Caetano, N.S. Microalgae for biodiesel
production and other applications: A review. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews 2010, 14(1), 217–232.
16. Uduman, N.; Qi, Y.; Danquah, M.K.; Forde, G.M.; Hoadley, A.
Dewatering of microalgal cultures: A major bottleneck to algae-
based fuels. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 2010, 2,
012701.
17. Milledge, J.J.; Heaven, S. A review of the harvesting of micro-algae
for biofuel production. Reviews in Environmental Science and
Biotechnology 2013, 12, 165–178.
18. Brennan, L.; Owende, P. Biofuels from microalgae—A review of
technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels
and co-products. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010,
14, 557–577.
19. Bernhardt, H.; Clasen, J. Flocculation of micro-organisms. Journal
of Water Supply: Research and Technology – Aqua 1991, 40, 76–87.
20. Chen, C.Y.; Yeh, K.L.; Aisyah, R.; Lee, D.J.; Chang, J.S.
Cultivation, photobioreactor design and harvesting of microalgae
for biodiesel production: A critical review. Bioresource Technology
2011, 102, 71–81.
21. Harun, R.; Singh, M.; Forde, G.M.; Danquah, M.K. Bioprocess
engineering of microalgae to produce a variety of consumer products.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010, 14, 1037–1047.
22. Lee, D.J.; Chen, G.Y.; Chang, Y.R.; Mujumdar, A.S.; Chang, J.S.
Cyclic filtration-cleaning of Chlorella vulgaris using surface-modified
hydrophilic polytetrafluoroethylene membrane with polyaluminum
chloride as coagulant. Drying Technology 2013, 31(2), 207–212.
23. Şirin, S.; Trobajo, R.; Ibanez, C.; Salvadó, J. Harvesting the
microalgae Phaeodactylum tricornutum with polyaluminum chloride,
aluminium sulphate, chitosan and alkalinity-induced flocculation.
Journal of Applied Phycology 2012, 24, 1067–1080.
24. Lee, A.K.; Lewis, D.M.; Ashman, P.J. Microbial flocculation,
a potentially low-cost harvesting technique for marine microalgae
for the production of biodiesel. Journal of Applied Phycology 2009,
21, 559–567.
25. Banerjee, C.; Gupta, P.; Mishra, S.; Sen, G.; Shukla, P.;
Bandopadhyay, R. Study of polyacrylamide grafted starch based
algal flocculation towards applications in algal biomass harvest-
ing. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2012,
51, 456–461.
26. Pushparaj, B.; Pelosi, E.; Torzillo, G.; Materassi, R. Microbial
biomass recovery using a synthetic cationic polymer. Bioresource
Technology 1993, 43, 59–62.
27. Eldridge, R.J.; Hill, D.R.A.; Gladman, B.R. A comparative study of
the coagulation behavior of marine microalgae. Journal of Applied
Phycology 2012, 24, 1667–1679.
28. López-León, T.; Carvalho, E.L.S.; Seijo, B.; Ortega-Vinuesa, J.L.;
Bastos-González, D. Physicochemical characterization of chitosan
nanoparticles: Electrokinetic and stability behavior. Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science 2005, 283, 344–351.
 452 CHEN ET AL.
29. Chen, G.; Zhao, L.; Qi, Y.; Cui, Y.L. Chitosan and its derivatives
applied in harvesting microalgae for biodiesel production: An out-
look. Journal of Nanomaterials 2014, Article ID 217537. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/217537
30. Ahmad, A.L.; Mat Yasin, N.H.; Derek, C.J.C., Lim, J.K. Optimiza-
tion of microalgae coagulation process using chitosan. Chemical
Engineering Journal 2011, 173, 879–882.
31. Chang, Y.R.; Lee, D.J. Coagulation-membrane filtration of
Chlorella vulgaris at different growth phases. Drying Technology
2012, 30, 1317–1322.
32. Chen, Y.M.; Liu, J.C.; Ju, Y.H. Flotation removal of algae from
water. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 1998, 12, 49–55.
33. Chen, L.; Wang, C.; Wang, W.; Wei, J. Optimal conditions of differ-
ent flocculation methods for harvesting Scenedesmus sp. cultivated in
an open-pond system. Bioresource Technology 2013, 133, 9–15.
34. Divakaran, R.; Pillai, V.N.S. Flocculation of algae using chitosan.
Journal of Applied Phycology 2002, 14, 419–422.
35. Farid, M.S.; Shariati, A.; Badakhshan, A.; Anvaripour, B. Using
nano-chitosan for harvesting microalga Nannochloropsis sp. Bioresource
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
Technology 2013, 131, 555–559.
36. Lee, A.K.; Lewis, D.M.; Ashman, P.J. Disruption of microalgal cells
for the extraction of lipids for biofuels: Processes and specific energy
requirements. Biomass and Bioenergy 2012, 46, 89–101.
37. Morales, J.; de la Noiie, J.; Picard, G. Harvesting marine microalgae
species by chitosan flocculation. Aquacultural Engineering 1985,
4, 257–270.
38. Rashid, N.; Rehman, S.U.; Han, J.I. Rapid harvesting of
freshwater microalgae using chitosan. Process Biochemistry 2013, 48,
1107–1110.
39. Rashid, N.; Rehman, M.S.U.; Han, J.I. Use of chitosan acid
solutions to improve separation efficiency for harvesting of the
microalga Chlorella vulgaris. Chemical Engineering Journal 2013,
226, 238–242.
40. Tran, D.T.; Le, B.H.; Lee, D.J.; Chen, C.L.; Wang, H.Y.; Chang,
J.S. Microalgae harvesting and subsequent biodiesel conversion.
Bioresource Technology 2013, 140, 179–186.
41. Toh, P.Y.; Ng, B.W.; Chong, C.H.; Ahmad, A.L.; Yang, J.W.;
Derek, C.J.C.; Lim, J.K. Magnetophoretic separation of microalgae:
The role of nanoparticles and polymer binder in harvesting biofuel.
RSC Advances 2014, 4, 4114–4121.
42. Xu, Y.; Purton, S.; Baganz, F. Chitosan flocculation to aid
the harvesting of the microalga Chlorella sorokiniana. Bioresource
Technology 2013, 129, 296–301.
43. Vandamme, D.; Foubert, I.; Meesschaert, B.; Muylaert, K.
Flocculation of microalgae using cationic starch. Journal of Applied
Phycology 2010, 22(4), 525–530.
44. Anthony, R.J.; Sims, R.C. Optimization of cationic amino starch
synthesis using biogenic amines. Carbohydrate Polymers 2013,
98(2), 1409–1415.
45. Anthony, R.J.; Ellis, J.T.; Sathish, A.; Rahman, A.; Miller, C.D.;
Sims, R.C. Effect of coagulant=flocculants on bioproducts from
microalgae. Bioresource Technology 2013, 149, 65–70.
46. Vandamme, D.; Muylaert, K.; Fraeye, I.; Foubert, I. Floc characteris-
tics of Chlorella vulgaris: Influence of flocculation mode and presence
of organic matter. Bioresource Technology 2014, 151, 383–387.
47. Gerde, J.A.; Yao, L.; Lio, J.Y.; Wen, Z.; Wang, T. Microalgae
flocculation: Impact of flocculant type, algae species and cell concen-
tration. Algal Research 2014, 3, 30–35.
48. Rakesh, S.; Saxena, S.; Dhar, D.W.; Prasanna, R.; Saxena, A.K.
Comparative evaluation of inorganic and organic amendments for
their flocculation efficiency of selected microalgae. Journal of Applied
Phycology 2014, 26(1), 399–406.
49. Edzwald, J.K. Algae, bubbles, coagulants, and dissolved air flotation.
Water Science and Technology 1993, 27(10), 67–81.
50. Collet, P.; Hélias, A.; Lardon, L.; Ras, M.; Goy, R.A.; Steyer, J.P.
Life-cycle assessment of microalgae culture coupled to biogas
production. Bioresource Technology 2011, 102(1), 207–214.
51. Smayda, T.J. The suspension and sinking of phytoplankton in the
sea. In Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, vol. 8;
Barnes, H., Ed.; George Allen & Unwin: London, 1970, 353–414.
52. Choi, S.K.; Lee, J.Y.; Kwon, D.Y.; Cho, K.J. Settling characteristics
of problem algae in the water treatment process. Water Science and
Technology 2006, 53(7), 113–119.
53. Vandamme, D.; Foubert, I.; Muylaert, K. Flocculation as a low-cost
method for harvesting microalgae for bulk biomass production.
Trends in Biotechnology 2013, 31(4), 233–239.
54. Cheng, W.P.; Chen, W.Y.; Yu, R.F. PACl coagulation for the solid–
liquid separation of highly concentrated algae suspensions. Desalina-
tion and Water Treatment 2010, 16, 290–297.
55. Xu, L.; Wang, F.; Li, H.Z.; Hu, Z.M.; Guo, C.; Liu, C.Z.
Development of an efficient electroflocculation technology integrated
with dispersed-air flotation for harvesting microalgae. Journal of
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 2010, 85, 1504–1507.
56. Ofir, E.; Oren, Y.; Adin, A. Comparing pretreatment by iron of
electro-flocculation and chemical flocculation. Desalination 2007,
204, 87–93.
57. Dassey, A.J.; Theegala, C.S. Reducing electrocoagulation harvesting
costs for practical microalgal biodiesel production. Environmental
Technology 2014, 35(6), 691–697.
58. Vandamme, D.; Pontes, S.C.V.; Goiris, K.; Foubert, I.; Pinoy, L.J.J.;
Muylaert, K. Evaluation of electro-coagulation–flocculation for
harvesting marine and freshwater microalgae. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 2011, 108(10), 2320–2329.
59. Lee, A.K.; Lewis, D.M.; Peter, J.; Ashman, P.J. Harvesting of
marine microalgae by electroflocculation: The energetics, plant design,
and economics. Applied Energy 2013, 108, 45–53.
60. Kim, D.G.; La, H.J.; Ahn, C.Y.; Park, Y.H.; Oh, H.M. Harvest of
Scenedesmus sp. with bioflocculant and reuse of culture medium
for subsequent high-density cultures. Bioresource Technology 2011,
102, 3163–3168.
61. Oh, H.M.; Lee, S.J.; Park, M.H.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, H.C.; Yoon, J.H.;
Kwon, G.S.; Yoon, B.D. Harvesting of Chlorella vulgaris using
a bioflocculant from Paenibacillus sp. AM49. Biotechnology Letters
2001, 23, 1229–1234.
62. Wan, C.; Zhao, X.Q.; Guo, S.L.; Asraful Alam, M.; Bai, F.W.
Bioflocculant production from Solibacillus silvestris W01 and its
application in cost-effective harvest of marine microalga Nanno-
chloropsis oceanica by flocculation. Bioresource Technology 2013,
135, 207–212.
63. Salim, S.; Bosma, R.; Vermuë, M.H.; Wijffels, R.H. Harvesting of
microalgae by bio-flocculation. Journal of Applied Phycology 2011,
23, 849–855.
64. Salim, S.; Vermuë, M.H.; Wijffels, R.H. Ratio between autofloccu-
lating and target microalgae affects the energy-efficient harvesting
by bio-flocculation. Bioresource Technology 2012, 118, 49–55.
65. Xie, S.; Sun, S.; Dai, S.Y.; Yuan, J.S. Efficient coagulation of micro-
algae in cultures with filamentous fungi. Algal Research 2013, 2, 28–33.
66. Zhang, J.; Hu, B. A novel method to harvest microalgae via
co-culture of filamentous fungi to form cell pellets. Bioresource Tech-
nology 2012, 114, 529–535.
67. Zhou, W.; Cheng, Y.; Li, Y.; Wan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lin, X.; Ruan, R.
Novel fungal pelletization-assisted technology for algae harvesting
and wastewater treatment. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
2012, 167, 214–228.
68. Zhou, W.; Min, M.; Hu, B.; Ma, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Shi, J.; Chen,
P.; Ruan, R. Filamentous fungi assisted bio-flocculation: A novel alter-
native technique for harvesting heterotrophic and autotrophic microal-
gal cells. Separation and Purification Technology 2013, 107, 158–165.
 DEWATERING AND DRYING METHODS FOR MICROALGAE
69. More, T.T.; Yadav, J.S.S.; Yan, S.; Tyagi, R.D. Surampalli, RY.
Extracellular polymeric substances of bacteria and their potential
environmental applications. Journal of Environmental Management
2014, 144, 1–25.
70. Alam, M.A.; Wan, C.; Guo, S.L.; Zhao, X.Q.; Huang, Z.Y.; Yang,
Y.L.; Chang, J.S.; Bai, F.W. Characterization of the flocculating
agent from the spontaneously flocculating microalga Chlorella vul-
garis JSC-7. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2014, 118(1),
29–33.
71. Garg, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Schenk, P.M. Flotation of marine
microalgae: Effect of algal hydrophobicity. Bioresource Technology
2012, 121, 471–474.
72. Molina Grima, E.; Belarbi, E.H.; Acién Fernándeza, F.G.; Robles
Medina, A.; Chisti, Y. Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabo-
lites: Process options and economics. Biotechnology Advances 2003,
20(7–8), 491–515.
73. Danquah, M.K.; Ang, L.; Uduman, N.; Moheimani, N.; Fordea,
G.M. Dewatering of microalgal culture for biodiesel production:
Exploring polymer flocculation and tangential flow filtration. Journal
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 2009, 84, 1078–1083.
74. Rossignol, N.; Vandanjon, L.; Jaouen, P.; Quéméneur, F. Membrane
technology for the continuous separation microalgae=culture
medium: Compared performances of cross-flow microfiltration and
ultrafiltration. Aquacultural Engineering 1999, 20, 191–208.
75. Sun, X.; Wanga, C.; Tong, Y.; Wang, W.; Wei, J. A comparative
study of microfiltration and ultrafiltration for algae harvesting. Algal
Research 2013, 2, 437–444.
76. Hwang, T.; Park, S.J.; Oh, Y.K.; Rashid, N.; Han, J.I. Harvesting of
Chlorella sp. KR-1 using a cross-flow membrane filtration system
equipped with an anti-fouling membrane. Bioresource Technology
2013, 139, 379–382.
77. Rios, S.D.; Clavero, E.; Salvadó, J.; Farriol, X.; Torras, C. Dynamic
microfiltration in microalgae harvesting for biodiesel production.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2011, 50(4), 2455–2460.
78. Rı́os, S.D.; Salvadó, J.; Farriol, X.; Torras, C. Antifouling
microfiltration strategies to harvest microalgae for biofuel. Bioresource
Technology 2012, 119, 406–418.
79. Zhang, X.; Hua, Q.; Sommerfeld, M.; Puruhito, E.; Chen, Y.
Harvesting algal biomass for biofuels using ultrafiltration
membranes. Bioresource Technology 2010, 101, 5297–5304.
80. Rossi, N.; Petit, I.; Jaouen, P.; Legentilhomme, P.; Derouiniot, M.
Harvesting of cyanobacterium Arthrospira platensis using inorganic
filtration membranes. Separation Science and Technology 2005, 40,
3033–3050.
81. Milledge, J.J.; Heaven, S. A review of the harvesting of micro-algae
for biofuel production. Reviews in Environmental Science and
Biotechnology 2013, 12, 165–178.
82. Heasman, M.; Diemar, J.; O’Connor, W.; Sushames, T.; Foulkes, L.
Development of extended shelf-life microalgae concentrates diets
harvested by centrifugation for bivalves molluscs—a summary.
Aquaculture Research 2000, 31, 637–659.
83. Milledge, J.J.; Heaven, S. Disc stack centrifugation separation and
cell disruption of microalgae: A technical note. Environment and
Natural Resources Research 2011, 12, 165–178.
84. Knuckey, R.M.; Brown, M.R.; Robert, R.; Frampton, D.M.F.
Production of microalgal concentrates by flocculation and their assess-
ment as aquaculture feeds. Aquacultural Engineering 2006, 35, 300–313.
85. Christenson, L.; Sims, R. Production and harvesting of microalgae
for wastewater treatment, biofuels, and bioproducts. Biotechnology
Advances 2011, 29, 686–702.
86. Dissa, A.O.; Desmorieux, H.; Savadogo, P.W.; Segda, B.G.;
Koulidiati, J. Shrinkage, porosity and density behaviour during
convective drying of Spirulina. Journal of Food Engineering 2010,
97, 410–418.
453
87. Oliveira, E.G.; Rosa, G.S.; Moraes, M.A.; Pinto, L.A.A.
Characterization of thin layer drying of Spirulina platensis utilizing
perpendicular air flow. Bioresource Technology 2009, 100, 1297–
1303.
88. Prakash, J.; Pushparaj, B.; Carlozzi, P.; Torzillo, G.; Montaini, E.;
Materassi, R. Microalgal biomass drying by a simple solar device.
International Journal of Solar Energy 1997, 18(4), 303–311.
89. Balasubramanian, R.K.; Yen Doan, T.T.; Obbard, J.P. Factors
affecting cellular lipid extraction from marine microalgae. Chemical
Engineering Journal 2013, 215–216, 929–936.
90. Guldhe, A.; Singh, B.; Rawat, I.; Ramluckan, K.; Bux, F. Efficacy of
drying and cell disruption techniques on lipid recovery from micro-
algae for biodiesel production. Fuel 2014, 128, 46–52.
91. Desmorieux, H.; Decaen, N. Convective drying of Spirulina in thin
layer. Journal of Food Engineering 2005, 66, 497–503.
92. Oliveira, E.G.; Duarte, J.H.; Moraes, K.; Crexi, V.T. Pinto, L.A.A.
Optimisation of Spirulina platensis convective drying: Evaluation of
phycocyanin loss and lipid oxidation. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology 2010, 45, 1572–1578.
93. Dissa, A.O.; Compaore, A.; Tiendrebeogo, E.; Koulidiati, J. An
effective moisture diffusivity model deduced from experiment and
numerical solution of mass transfer equations for a shrinkable drying
slab of microalgae Spirulina. Drying Technology 2014, 32(10),
1231–1244.
94. Ryckebosch, E.; Muylaert, K.; Eeckhout, M.; Ruyssen, T.; Foubert,
I. Influence of drying and storage on lipid and carotenoid stability of
the microalga Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry 2011, 59, 11063–11069.
95. Desmorieux, H.; Hernandez, F. Biochemical and physical criteria of
Spirulina after different drying processes. In Proceedings of the 14th
International Drying Symposium (IDS), São Paulo City, Brazil,
August 22–25, 2004, B, 900–907.
96. Lee, D.J.; Chen, G.Y.; Chang, Y.R.; Lee, K.R. Harvesting of chito-
san coagulated Chlorella vulgaris using cyclic membrane
filtration-cleaning. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical
Engineers 2012, 43, 948–952.
97. Mahadevaswamy, M.; Venkataraman, L.V. Microbial load in mass
cultures of green algae Scenedesmus acutus and its processed powder.
Journal of Biosciences 1981, 3(4), 439–448.
98. Saleh, A.M.; Hussein, L.A.; Abdalla, F.E.; EI-Fouly, M.M.;
Shaheen, A.B. The nutritional quality of drum-dried algae produced
in open door mass culture. Zeitschrift für Ernährungswissenschaft
1985, 24, 256–263.
99. Gazor, H.R.; Mohsenimanesh, A. Modelling the drying kinetics of
canola in fluidised bed dryer. Czech Journal of Food Sciences 2010,
28(6), 531–537.
100. Bauman, I.; Bobić, Z.; Ðaković, Z.; Ukrainczyk, M. Time and speed
of fruit drying on batch fluid-beds. Sādhanā 2005, 30(5), 687–698.
101. Leach, G.; Oliveira, G.; Morais, R. Production of a carotenoid-rich
product by alginate entrapment and fluid-bed drying of Dunaliella
salina. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1998, 76,
298–302.
102. Chatterjee, D.; Bhattacharjee, P. Supercritical carbon dioxide
extraction of antioxidant rich fraction from Phormidium valderianum:
Optimization of experimental process parameters. Algal Research
2014, 3, 49–54.
103. Chakdar, H.; Saha, S.; Pabbi, S. Chromatographic and spectroscopic
characterization of phycocyanin and its subunits purified from
Anabaena variabilis CCC421. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology
2014, 50(1), 62–68.
104. Thangam, R.; Suresh, V.; Asenath Princy, W.; Rajkumar, M.;
Senthilkumar, N.; Gunasekaran, P.; Rengasamy, R.; Anbazhagan,
C.; Kaveri, K.; Kannan, S. C-Phycocyanin from Oscillatoria tenuis
exhibited an antioxidant and in vitro antiproliferative activity
 454 CHEN ET AL.
through induction of apoptosis and G0=G1 cell cycle arrest. Food
Chemistry 2013, 140(1–2), 262–272.
105. Sorensen, L.; Hantke, A.; Eriksen, N.T. Purification of the
photosynthetic pigment C-phycocyanin from heterotrophic Galdieria
sulphuraria. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2013,
93(12), 2933–2938.
106. Ahmed, F.; Fanning, K.; Netzel, M.; Turner, W.; Li, Y.; Schenk,
P.M. Profiling of carotenoids and antioxidant capacity of microalgae
from subtropical coastal and brackish waters. Food Chemistry 2014,
165, 300–306.
107. Singh, D.; Puri, M.; Wilkens, S.; Mathur, A.S.; Tuli, D.K.; Barrow,
C.J. Characterization of a new zeaxanthin producing strain of
Chlorella saccharophila isolated from New Zealand marine waters.
Bioresource Technology 2013, 143, 308–314.
108. Wu, J.J.; Hong, S.E.; Wang, Y.C.; Hsu, S.L.; Chang, C.M.J.
Microalgae cultivation and purification of carotenoids using super-
critical anti-solvent recrystallization of CO2 þacetone solution. The
Journal of Supercritical Fluids 2012, 66, 333–341.
109. Plaza, M.; Santoyo, S.; Jaime, L.; Avalo, B.; Cifuentes, A.; Reglero,
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 09:31 11 March 2015
G.; Reina, G.G.B.; Señoráns, F.J.; Ibáñez, E. Comprehensive
characterization of the functional activities of pressurized liquid
and ultrasound-assisted extracts from Chlorella vulgaris. Food Science
and Technology 2012, 46(1), 245–253.
110. Soares, A.T.; Da Costa, D.C.; Silva, B.F.; Lopes, R.G.; Derner, R.B.;
Filho, N.R.A. Comparative analysis of the fatty acid composition of
microalgae obtained by different oil extraction methods and direct
biomass transesterification. BioEnergy Research 2014, 7(3), 1035–1044.
111. Solana, M.; Rizza, C.S.; Bertucco, A. Exploiting microalgae
as a source of essential fatty acids by supercritical fluid extraction
of lipids: Comparison between Scenedesmus obliquus, Chlorella
protothecoides and Nannochloropsis salina. Journal of Supercritical
Fluids 2014, 92, 311–318.
112. Li, Y.; Ghasemi Naghdi, F.; Garg, S.; Adarme-Vega, T.C.;
Thurecht, K.J.; Ghafor, W.A.; Tannock, S.; Schenk, P.M.
A comparative study: The impact of different lipid extraction
methods on current microalgal lipid research. Microbial Cell
Factories 2014, 13–14.
113. Mansour, M.P. Reversed-phase high-performance liquid
chromatography purification of methyl esters of C16–C28 polyun-
saturated fatty acids in microalgae, including octacosaoctaenoic
acid [28:8(n-3)]. Journal of Chromatography A 2005, 1097(1–2),
54–58.
114. Belarbi, E.H.; Molina, E.; Chisti, Y. A process for high yield and
scaleable recovery of high purity eicosapentaenoic acid esters from
microalgae and fish oil. [RETRACTED]. Process Biochemistry 2000,
35(9), 951–969.
115. Cao, H.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, X.; Miao, X. Direct biodiesel production
from wet microalgae biomass of Chlorella pyrenoidosa through
in situ transesterification. BioMed Research International 2013.
DOI: 10.1155/2013/930686.
116. Kumara, V.; Muthuraj, M.; Palabhanvi, B.; Ghoshal, A.K.; Das, D.
Evaluation and optimization of two stage sequential in situ trans-
esterification process for fatty acid methyl ester quantification from
microalgae. Renewable Energy 2014, 68, 560–569.
117. Tran, D.-T.; Yeh, K.-L.; Chen, C.-L.; Chang, J.-S. Enzymatic
transesterification of microalgal oil from Chlorella vulgaris ESP-31
for biodiesel synthesis using immobilized Burkholderia lipase.
Bioresource Technology 2012, 108, 119–127.