Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Algal Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/algal

Review article

A comprehensive review on microalgal harvesting strategies: Current status T

and future prospects
Madonna Roya, Kaustubha Mohantya,b,*
a
Centre for Energy, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781 039, India
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Microalgae are considered as a potential and sustainable feedstock for the production of biofuels, fine chemicals,
Microalgae nutraceuticals, and cosmetics. This is accredited to their high lipid and carbohydrate content, fast growth and
Harvesting rapid CO2 sequestration ability. However, large volumes of feedstock are required to extract and process bio-
Review chemicals from microalgal biomass due to the small biomass to liquid ratio. This produces substantial challenges
Economic viability
in attaining a sustainable energy balance in microalgae-based products process operations. Additionally, the
Life cycle assessment
small size of microalgal cells along with their negatively charged cell surface and cell density similar to the
Technoeconomic analysis
growth medium produces challenges in microalgae harvesting. The high cost associated with microalgae har-
vesting is a major bottleneck for commercialization of algae-based industrial products. Hence, microalgae
harvesting is recognized as an area that needs to be explored and developed. This article aims to collate and
present an overview of current harvesting strategies such as physical, chemical, biological, electrical and
magnetic methods along with their future prospects. This review also highlights the evolution of microalgal
harvesting and elucidates the fundamental phenomena of each technology in relation to key physical parameters
such as morphology, size, density and surface charge. Besides throwing widespread light on various harvesting
methods, this review article has also presented their advantages and disadvantages. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
and technoeconomic analysis (TEA) was reviewed to assess the feasibility of various harvesting system for
commercial application based on the environmental and technoeconomic impacts. Hence, the vital proposals
provided in this review article would undeniably pave the way for choosing the appropriate harvesting strategy.

1. Introduction
The rapid growth of population and advancement in technology
may lead to a rise in global energy consumption from 550 EJ in 2020 to
865 EJ by 2040 [1]. The need for energy must be satiated to maintain
pace with technological development. Primary energy sources include
both renewable as well as non-renewable sources. Fossil fuel, which is a
non-renewable energy resource, is widely used to meet the global en-
ergy demand. But, fossil fuel provides a finite amount of energy, and a
significant amount of impact is imposed on the environment during its
exploration and use [2]. A major portion of the world’s energy is pro-
duced and consumed by India. India, by producing 2.49% of the world’s
total annual energy ranks seventh in terms of energy production [3].
Research on microalgae as a feedstock for various products such as
biofuels, chemicals, pharmaceutical, aquaculture feed, and cosmetics
continues to increase because of the inherent advantages it holds over
other traditional feedstock. From bioenergy perspective, microalgae
possess the potential to generate a considerable amount of oil per acre
as compared to other biofuel feedstock. Moreover, the land that is not
suitable for crop cultivation can be used for growing microalgae [4].
Microalgae are unicellular photosynthetic microorganisms that grow
very fast and has a thirst for carbon dioxide. The three key elements
required for microalgal growth are light source (obtained from sun),
nutrients (mainly nitrogen, phosphorus and trace metals) [5] and a
carbon source (derived from CO2). These are then stored in the cell
tissues as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and silica nanomaterials (in
the case of diatom species) [6]. Microalgae biomass being rich in bio-
chemical composition favours the production of a broad spectrum of
marketable value-added products. The presence of triglycerides in mi-
croalgal lipids favours biodiesel production. A range of different in-
dustries can also use microalgal proteins and carbohydrates [7]. Pro-
ducts having high market value, such as β-carotene [8], PUFA such as
eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid [9], and astaxanthin
[10] can be obtained in low volumes from microalgae. Besides having

⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre for Energy, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781 039, India
E-mail address: kmohanty@iitg.ac.in (K. Mohanty).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101683
Received 2 July 2019; Received in revised form 24 September 2019; Accepted 24 September 2019
2211-9264/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
the ability to produce bio-products, microalgae also help in bior-
emediation such as carbon dioxide sequestration [11], and the elim-
ination of heavy metals from effluents [12]. The ability to produce
high-value products along with bioremediation capability confirms
microalgae as the potential feedstock in industrial sectors. However,
microalgae-based production technologies suffer from several limita-
tions at different stages of the upstream and downstream processes
[13]. Harvesting of algal biomass is one of the major bottlenecks during
downstream processing, as it involves high energy input [14]. Almost
80%–90% of the equipment cost is utilized for harvesting microalgal
biomass from open ponds [15].
This review article highlights the evolution of microalgal harvesting
strategies and elucidates the underlying phenomena of each technology
in relation to key physical parameters such as morphology, size, density
and surface charge. Apart from discussing various harvesting techni-
ques, this article also sums up the details of the experimental condi-
tions, which play a key role in the process itself. This will help provide
firsthand knowledge to future researchers for selecting optimal ex-
perimental parameters for achieving maximum harvesting efficiency.
The environmental footprint resulting from the employment of several
harvesting strategies is a concerning matter that has been analyzed
briefly in this article by using life cycle assessment (LCA). Moreover,
technoeconomic analysis (TEA) has also been discussed to evaluate the
economic feasibility of the harvesting processes.
2. Physical properties of microalgae
A diverse range of microalgae (brown, red and green), cyano-
bacteria and diatoms have been exploited to produce feedstock for food,
nutraceuticals, fuel and fine chemicals [7]. These microalgae, cyano-
bacteria, and diatoms are found in different shapes and forms: spherical
or filamentous, elongated and their cell size ranges from 0.5 to 200 μm.
Moreover, single cells can combine to form more complex structures
such as filaments. The green algae Spirogyra, the cyanobacteria Ana-
baena and the diatom Melosira have the capability to develop chains of
cells [16]. The Scenedesmus species came to spotlight because of its
potential source of lipids for biodiesel production and high-value car-
otenoid. These Scenedesmus species generally manifest long spines in
the colonies of two or four-cell coenobia [17]. Whereas, some species
such as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii are found to be flagellated and mo-
bile within the medium. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii has also been
highlighted as a potential strain used for genetic manipulation [18].
This wide range of physical characteristics exhibited by microalgae
disturbs harvesting efficiency. For instance, flagellated cells evade
flocculation by swimming out of flocs, and the cells get easily damaged
when mechanical harvesting method is used [19].
The cell surface charge or Zeta potential of microalgae is negative,
and it plays a vital role in the downstream processing. Gerardo et al.
[20] reported that the zeta potential of microalgal cells can vary from
− 2 mV to − 75 mV under the influence of chemical functional groups
present in the cell surface, which changes with culture conditions and
cell age [21,22]. Moreover, ionization of certain chemical functional
groups on the microalgal cell surface, such as the amino and carboxyl
groups, is involved in the charge and stabilization of microalgae sus-
pensions [19]. Ionization of amino and carboxyl groups is greatly de-
pendent on pH, and these ionized functional groups influence the
physicochemical features of microalgal cells [23].
The cell density of diatoms and green algae is reported to vary from
1070 kg m−3 to 1140 kg m-3, respectively [16]. Sedimentation, a
gravity-based separation process is highly influenced by the difference
in solid-liquid/algae-medium density. The diameter of algal cells plays
a key role in the sedimentation process, as the size of the cell affects the
drag of the algal cells in the medium. Rapid settling can be observed if
the effective cell size is enlarged by algal cell flocculation. Microalgal
cells containing high lipid and gas vesicles do not settle under the in-
fluence of any gravitational force, thus, increasing the complexity of the
2
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
harvesting process [19].
Fouling is a major drawback that hinders the harvesting of micro-
algae through membrane filtration. Fouling occurs because microalgae
can produce biofilms as they possess extracellular organic matter
(EOM), mostly protein, polysaccharides or polysaccharide like sub-
stances, attached to their cells. The impact of EOM can be seen on the
surface chemistry of mineral particles [24,25]. EOM either promotes or
inhibits floc formation and chelating metal cations [26,27]. The con-
centration of EOM is observed to vary widely from species to species.
For example, in cyanobacteria Synechocystis, the EOM concentration is
found to be 1.8 mg L−1, whereas, for the green algae Chlorella, the EOM
concentration is found to be 81 mg L-1 [16]. The concentration of EOM
is reported to increase with the age of microalgae culture. However, a
depletion in the content of uronic acid inside the EOM is witnessed as
the microalgal culture ages [21].
3. Microalgal harvesting strategies
Harvesting is a process of separating microalgal biomass from the
growth medium. The strategy employed for harvesting and dewatering
the microalgae generally accounts for approximately 3%–30% of total
biomass cost [28,29]. Thus, the economy of microalgal production is
significantly influenced by the harvesting technology [30]. As men-
tioned earlier, several factors such as the cell age, shape, type, density
and size of the target microalgae and the significance of the end product
influence the selection of harvesting technology [28]. Typically a har-
vesting method which yields algal biomass with minimum moisture
content is preferred [14]. The high moisture content of harvested algal
biomass may also increase the cost of further processing [14]. Gen-
erally, microalgal harvesting involves two concentration steps. During
the primary harvesting, thickening procedure is applied where the
microalgal slurry is concentrated to around 2%–7% of total suspended
solids (TSS). This can be attained by applying either flotation, sedi-
mentation, flocculation or a combination of flotation and sedimentation
processes [20]. Thickening procedure is followed by a secondary de-
watering procedure, that results in the formation of an algal cake with
15%–25% TSS, which can be attained by using centrifugation or fil-
tration [31]. However, a secondary dewatering procedure requires
more energy as compared to primary thickening procedures. Currently,
microalgal cells are harvested either by physical, chemical, biological,
electrical or magnet-based methods. Some researchers have combined
two or more of the above methods to harvest maximum microalgal
biomass. Table 1 shows a comparison of various harvesting techniques.
3.1. Physical methods
3.1.1. Sedimentation
In the process of sedimentation, gravitational forces entail the set-
tling of the suspended algal cells from the medium of different density.
However, if the particle size or density difference is small, the separa-
tion process may be reduced. The sedimentation principle can be well
explained by Stokes’ Law according to which the settling velocity is
directly proportional to the square of the (Stokes’) radius of the cells
and the difference in density between the microalgal cells and the
medium as given below [32]:
2 r2
Setting velocity = g (ρ − ρ1)
9 η s (1)
where, η denotes the fluid dynamic viscosity, r denotes the cell radius,
and ρs and ρl denote the solid and liquid densities.
Microalgal sedimentation is driven by a small density difference as
microalgae has a density nearly the same as that of saltwater and water
at 1025 kg m−3 [33]. The density of marine microalgae ranges between
1030 kg m−3 and 1100 kg m−3 [34], the density of marine diatom and
dinoflagellates ranges between 1030 kg m−3 and 1230 kg m−3, the
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

density of the freshwater green microalgae (Chlorococcum) ranges

[75,149,150,151]

[42,115,150,154]
[45,47,149,150]
between 1040 kg m−3 and 1140 kg m−3 [35] and the density of cya-

[126,150,151]
[52,150,151]
[62,150,152]

[98,150,153]
[23,29,150]
[80,92,150]
nobacteria ranges between 1082 kg m−3 and 1104 kg m−3. The settling
velocity varies depending upon the type of microalgae. According to
Ref.

Stokes’ Law (Eq.1), the hypothetical settlement velocity of one single

spherical shaped microalgal cell such as Chlorella was determined to be
0.1 m day-1 [32]. The settling velocity of diatoms, green microalgae and
cyanobacteria were found to be 0.2 m day-1, 0.1 m day-1 and 0 to
application
Large scale

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Unsuitable
Unsuitable
0.05 m day-1 respectively [36]. An experimental study found that the
Suitable

Suitable

Suitable
Suitable
Suitable
theoretical settling velocity of microalgae deviates from the observed
settling velocity [34,37].
Stokes’ law is valid only for spherical shapes, but most of the mi-
croalgae are found to exhibit different morphology [38]. Microalgae
Reusability of

tend to have a diverse range of shapes as a result of evolutionary de-

velopment. This morphological development of microalgae prevents
medium

Possible
Possible

Possible

Possible
Limited

Limited

Limited

Limited

them from settling from the euphotic zone [34]. In a study of 24 mi-
croalgae that ranged in size from 10 to 1000 μm, the settling rate was
observed to vary between 0.4 and 2.2 m day−1. But the study couldn’t
Microbial contamination

find a direct correlation between cell size and settling rates for diatoms
AOM and EOM released

Surfactant may be toxic

Metal contamination

Metal contamination
Metal contamination

[38]. While studying the sinking rate of 30 microalgae species collected

from wastewater, it was found that most of them were reluctant to
cause toxicity

settle, particularly the needle-shaped microalgae [39]. Studies show the

No toxicity

No toxicity

No toxicity

possibility of harvesting colonial algae such as Micractinium and Sce-

Toxicity

nedesmus (with a cluster diameter of approximately 60 μm) via sedi-

mentation. However, sedimentation is not possible for smaller micro-
algae such as Chlorella and motile algae such as Euglena and
Operational cost

Chlorogonium.
The sedimentation rate not only varies among microalgae species
Medium

Medium

Medium

but also varies within the same species. Studies found that settling rates
High

High

High
High
Low

Low

might vary with light intensity [40] and nutrient content [41]. How-
ever, older cells (senescent cells) [34] and spore-forming cells have high
sinking rates [41]. It has been reported that lipid-rich microalgae have
consumption

low density, and hence the settling rate is less. The average density of
lipid is 860 kg m−3, protein 1300 kg m−3 and carbohydrate 1500 kg m-
Energy

3
High

High

[37].
Low

Low
Low

Low
Low
Low

Low

The sedimentation process has not been extensively used for settling
of microalgae [42] as the sedimentation rate of 4–5 μm sized micro-
Unfeasible for very small

algae in the large scale is very small [40]. In the case of microalgal
settling, cell recovery is meagre, i.e., 60%–65% [43]. Moreover, a large
Species specific

size microalgae

land area is required for constructing settling ponds and tanks [44]. A
study found that as the settlement process is time-consuming, high-
temperature environments may deteriorate most of the biomass pro-
duced [21]. But the energy consumed during the sedimentation process
Yes

Yes
No

No

No

No
No
No

is comparatively low. Generally, a lamella type settling tank consumes

Process time

0.1 kWh m−3 for obtaining 0.1%–1.5% dry microalgal biomass [45]. As
Medium

the process is non-turbulent or high-pressure-driven, it preserves the

Short

Short
Short

Short

Short
Short
Short
Long

structural integrity of the microalgae [46] and requires low energy

[47]. During harvesting, sedimentation is generally used as a pre-con-
Cell damage

centration step for settling colonial and large-sized microalgae.

Harvesting of biomass by sedimentation is a cost-effective, effortless
and simple technique, as the process does not require any energy or
Yes

Yes
No

No
No

No
No
No

No

addition of chemicals. Nevertheless, this process is time-consuming,

Comparison of various harvesting techniques.

unreliable, and there is a probability of biomass deterioration, which

hinders its commercial application.
efficiency
Recovery

Medium
High

High

High
High
High
High
High
Low

3.1.2. Centrifugation
The harvesting of biomass through centrifugation is based on the
application of centrifugal force to enhance the settling rate. The effi-
Magnetic particle assisted

ciency of harvesting depends on the microalgae cell size and density

Harvesting techniques

difference between the microalgae biomass and the medium. The set-
Electroflocculation

tling rate is boosted by the high rotational speed of the centrifuge. In

Autoflocculation
Bioflocculation

harvesting
Centrifugation
Sedimentation

reality, centrifugation is an extension of gravity sedimentation, and the

Flocculation

cell settling velocity is given by:

Filtration
Flotation
Table 1

2 P
⎛ ds ⎞ = ω rΔρD2
⎝ dt ⎠c 18μ (2)

3
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
where, ( )
ds
denotes the settling velocity of the cells (m s−1), Dp de-
dt c
notes the cell diameter (m), r denotes the radial distance from cen-
trifuge axis (m), μ denotes the medium viscosity (kg m−1), Δρ denotes
the difference between the density of cells and medium (kg m-3), and ω
denotes the rotational velocity (s− 1). The total time, t, required to
settle a microalgae cell increases with the settling distances (settling
path), s:
s 18μs
t= =
ω2rΔρDP2
( )
ds
dt c (3)
Centrifuges of various designs are available, the characteristics of
the feed and the end-product requirement determines the selection
between sedimentation centrifuges or filtration centrifuges. Usually, to
procure clarified liquid sedimentation centrifuges are used, while fil-
tration centrifuges are utilized to obtain dry cake [19]. Harvesting of
microalgae biomass through centrifugation is much advantageous as
compared to other methods. Flocculants and chemicals free biomass
can be obtained through centrifugation. Harvesting of microalgae bio-
mass through centrifugation is applicable to all types of microalgae
strains [48]. Harvesting through this process ensures a high recovery
rate. A study evaluated the cell viability and harvesting efficiency of
various microalgae species using three different centrifugation techni-
ques: bottle centrifuge which operates at 1300 g-force, batch disc
centrifuge which operates at 6000 g-force and the tubular bowl cen-
trifuge which operates at 13,000 g-force. The tubular bowl centrifuge,
being operated at the highest g-force can achieve harvesting efficiency
of nearly 100% for all species. However, some species such as Chaeto-
ceros muelleri and Isochrysis sp. are found to be more sensitive to high g-
force. The bottle centrifuge, being operated at the lowest g-force is less
efficient. Nonetheless, this technique ensures 100% cell viability for all
algal species that were evaluated. Depending on the type of algal spe-
cies, the optimal centrifuge system is selected as high g-force may cause
cell lysis [49]. Most large scale centrifuges operate at 5000-10,000 g-
force and are capable of achieving 95% harvesting efficiency under
good operational conditions. The decanter type centrifuge is the op-
timal centrifuge for the mass harvesting of microalgae biomass, as it
doesn’t require to stop regularly and clean manually like the batch type
centrifuges [47].
High solid fractions, along with the continuous discharge of the
product can be achieved through decanter type centrifuges [50]. 22%
of TSS is possible to obtain through decanter type centrifuge [47].
However, a study found that the decanter type centrifuge is not suitable
for Chlorella sp, which is a commonly grown and commercially im-
portant species [50]. Moreover, the microalgal cells are exposed to high
shear and gravitational forces during centrifugation that may impair
the cell structure, resulting in loss of valuable materials. A study found
that for a feed rate of 1 L min−1 the energy consumed during micro-
algae harvesting through centrifugation is 8 kW h m-3 of microalgae
suspension. However, energy consumption can be reduced by 10-fold if
the feed rate is increased to 18 L min−1, but this will result in low
harvesting efficiency. Thus, the low efficiency and high flow rate cen-
trifugation strategy was able to harvest oleaginous algae at $0.864 L−1
oil as opposed to $4.52 L−1 oil using numbers provided by the De-
partment of Energy for centrifugation harvesting [51].
Despite high operational cost and probability of cell damage owing
to the high shear force, centrifugation is still the most widely applied
harvesting technique. This is attributed to its advantageous features
such as high harvesting efficiency, rapid harvesting capability, strain
independency and a negligible chance of contamination. The biomass
harvested through centrifugation can be safely used for high valued
products.
3.1.3. Flotation
Studies found that for most of the microalgal species recovery of
microalgal biomass through flotation is relatively fast in comparison to
4
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
sedimentation [52]. Recovery of biomass via flotation is mainly de-
pendent on the low density of microalgae, as the low density of mi-
croalgal cells facilitates them to float upwards more easily and rapidly
than to sediment downwards [19]. Some cyanobacteria such as Ana-
baena, Microcystis, and Spirulina possess gas vesicles which facilitates
them to float naturally [19]. Although some microalgae float naturally
due to its low density or presence of gas vesicles, incorporation of air
bubbles in the medium can also help in promoting flotation [52]. In
most cases, like sedimentation process flocculants are required to be
added to make the flotation effective [53]. A study found that large
flocs produced by combining organic and inorganic polymers facilitated
flotation of marine microalgae, Isochrysis galbana [54]. Flocculation
flotation favours over sedimentation for the recovery of microalgal
biomass because of the low density of microalgal flocs as compared to
microalgal cells [55].
Based on the technique of bubble production, flotation processes are
classified as froth flotation, dispersed air flotation, dissolved air flota-
tion and electrolytic flotation [47]. Froth flotation is a promising ap-
proach for commercial-scale harvesting of microalgae. However, all the
surfactants employed for froth flotation are conventional monomeric
surfactants containing a single similar hydrophobic group in the mo-
lecule, which leads to low harvesting efficiency. Whereas, a novel Ge-
mini surfactant, N,N′-bis(cetyldimethyl)-1,4-butane diammonium di-
bromide (BCBD) consist of two traditional monomeric amphiphiles that
are covalently connected by a spacer unit, resulting in a high harvesting
efficiency [56,57]. Fig. 1. depicts the schematics of microalgal froth
flotation using Gemini BCBD or cetyl trimethylammonium bromide
(CTAB) as collector.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) involves the generation of air bubbles
that range in size from 10 to 100 μm with a mean size of 40 μm [53]. In
countries such as the USA, usually, chemical coagulation is followed by
dissolved air flotation for the purification of effluent, instead of har-
vesting microalgal biomass [12]. It was reported in a study that high
quantity of alum (0.3 g L−1) enables recovery of microalgae from pig
slurry [58]. Although the dissolved air flotation process is an efficient
harvesting option, it requires high pressure making the process more
energy-intensive [59].
The electro-flotation process is not considered as the optimum
method for harvesting microalgae as the method is effective only at a
bench scale, and moreover, the process is an energy-intensive one like
DAF [42]. Research suggested that electro-flotation process is more
effective in marine water than freshwater [55]. Quantum Fracturing™ is
a method developed by Origin Oil that applies pulsed electromagnetic
fields and modified pH to fracture the microalgal cells and release the
microalgal lipids to the surface and letting the remains of microalgal
biomass to settle out [60].
The University of Sheffield applied fluidic oscillation to develop an
energy-efficient method for generating micro-bubbles [61]. Recently it
has been seen that micro-bubbles produced by fluidic oscillation are
being able to harvest microalgal biomass from growth medium effec-
tively [59]. However, more research must be carried out to make it
practically feasible to harvest large-scale microalgae through the en-
ergy-efficient micro-bubbles [62].
Flotation of microalgal biomass with the aid of small bubbles re-
quires high energy and operational costs. The cost involved in the flo-
tation process in which the flocculant needs to be added may be the
same as or greater than the cost involved during the centrifugation
process [48]. Research still needs to be carried out to scale-up the low-
energy flotation techniques and make the flotation process economic-
ally and technically feasible.
Low operational costs, less space requirement, shorter operational
times and large-scale applicability are some of the major advantages of
the flotation process. However, high-energy consumption and species-
specificity are the two significant shortcomings that might hinder the
commercialization of the process. Various flotation methods used for
harvesting of microalgae is detailed in Table 2.
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

Fig. 1. The scheme of proposal for the froth flotation harvesting of microalgae using Gemini N,N′-bis(cetyldimethyl)-1,4-butane diammonium dibromide (BCBD) or
cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) as the collector (Adapted from Ref. [57]).

3.1.4. Filtration filtration is classified as microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration

The recovery of microalgal biomass by filtration involves a semi-
permeable membrane that acts as a filter to separate solid from liquid.
This semi-permeable filter is comprised of pores smaller than the cells
being retained, allowing selective passage of substances smaller in size
than the pores of the filter. Membrane filtration processes mainly in-
volve two flow configurations: dead-end and tangential flow. In case of
dead-end membrane filtration, the flow is perpendicular to the mem-
brane surface. Dead-end filtration is generally a batch process, where
cartridge filtration, vacuum drum filters, and horizontal filter press are
the three common technologies that work in dead-end mode. In tan-
gential membrane filtration, the flow is tangential to the membrane
surface. Tangential flow filtration (TFF) consists of synthetic semi-
permeable membranes with pore sizes ranging from a few Angstroms to
a few Microns. Based on the pore size of the membrane, the membrane
and reverse/forward osmosis [63]. Darcy’s equation defines the per-
formance of membrane filtration processes [64].
ΔP − ΔΠ
J=
(Rm + R c ) μ (4)
where J denotes the membrane flux (m3 (m2·s)−1), ΔP denotes the
transmembrane pressure (Pa), ΔΠ denotes the osmotic pressure (Pa), Rm
denotes the intrinsic membrane resistance (m− 1), Rc denotes the cake
resistance owing to fouling (m− 1) and μ denotes the viscosity of the
microalgae suspension (Pa·s).
Harvesting of microalgae through membrane filtration is usually
carried out within the ultrafiltration-microfiltration range [65]. For-
ward osmosis membrane process is the optimum membrane filtration
technique for the harvesting of microalgal biomass from dilute media as

Table 2
Different flotation methods used to harvest microalgae.
Microalgae Flotation Coagulant Algal concentration Dosage pH Working Process time Harvesting Efficiency Ref.
method volume (min) (%)

C.vulgaris BBF Chitosan 7.60 ± 1.8 × 106 30 mg L−1 7.5 2L 2 92.47 [155]
cells·mL−1
Nannochloropsis sp. BF MPOE – 50,000 mg L−1 8 100 m L 120 86.5 [156]
C.vulgaris DAF C16TAB – 80 mg L−1 – 1L – 89.23 [157]
Chlorella sp. EF Chitosan – 20 mg L−1 6 200 mL 20 90 [158]
Chlorella sp. FF CTAB 126.14 ± 10.06 mg L−1 10 mg L−1 – – 30 – [159]
Dunaliella salina MF FeCl3 – 150 mg L−1 5 – – 99.2 [59]
C. vulgaris CBBF Fly ash – 2.83 g L 2.41 2L 17.05 93.04 [160]
C. vulgaris FF CTAB 0.46 ± 0.13 g L−1 35 mg L−1 – – 2 95 [161]
Tetraselmis sp. FF DPC 370 ± 36 mg L−1 15 mg L−1 9.5 35 L 15 99 [162]
C. vulgaris BDAF microspheres 7.6 ± 1.8 × 106 cells mL−1 550 mg L−1 3 1L 3 85.04 [163]

Buoy-bead flotation (BBF); Compound buoy-bead flotation (CBBF); Bio-flotation (BF); Dissolved air flotation (DAF); Electrolytic flotation (EF); Froth flotation (FF);
Microflotation (MF); Moringa protein extract-oil emulsion (MPOE); cationic cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB); Ozone flotation (OF); Ballasted dissolved air
flotation (BDAF); Dodecyl pyridinium chloride (DPC).

5
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

it also helps to reduce power consumption [66]. Membrane filtration

[164]
[165]
[166]
[167]
[168]
[169]

[170]
[171]
[172]
[69]
Ref.
follows a common rule of thumb according to which a membrane fil-
tration must have pore size 10–20 times smaller than the cells that are
to be retained [20]. Research by Rossi et al. [67] found that ultra-
filtration membrane performs better than microfiltration membranes at

Volumetric concentration factor

steady-state permeance. On the other hand, some researchers con-
cluded that applying an ultrafiltration membrane is pointless, as lower
initial fluxes and higher operating pressures overshadow better per-
formance [68]. Drawbacks of using membrane filtration include
membrane pore blocking, cake formation and adsorption of gel-foulants
such as EOM. Fouling can be reduced by back-flushing [69], membrane
surface modification, addition of coagulants, dynamic filtration and

12.5
150
shear enhancement [70]. The PES/MWCNT-1/LiBr-5 membrane de-

86

10
–
–

–
–

–
–
veloped by thermally induced phase separation process exhibited high
porosity and hydrophilic nature, which contributed to remarkable algae
permeation and anti-fouling properties, respectively [71]. Polymeric

31,026 Pa
86.43 kPa
34.5 kPa

100 kPa
1.5 bar
and ceramic membranes are most commonly used to recover a wide

70 kPa

60 kPa
TMP
variety of microalgae, although polymeric membranes are mostly pre-

–
ferred because of their low cost.
Since membrane filtration is a chemical-free method of harvesting,
the desired product can be easily extracted from the biomass [65]. Few

Scale

Pilot
Lab

Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
literatures have detailed about the cost involved during the process and
energy consumed is generally not determined.
Filtration is a highly efficient and chemical-free process. The cell
integrity remains undisturbed; hence, this harvesting technique is ap-

19 × 106 cells ml−1

Algal concentration
plicable for shear-sensitive species. Moreover, the process allows the

0.9–1.2 cells L−1

reusability of the medium. The filtration process is non-toxic and thus,

−1

− 1
is well suited for human and animal food applications. However, high

0.2 g L−1

0.5 g L−1
29 mg L

2.9 g L
operational costs due to pumping requirements and the high tendency
of membrane fouling along with low membrane selectivity are the

–
–
–
underlying weaknesses of this process. Various filtration techniques
employed for microalgal harvesting is depicted in Table 3.
Pore size/ MWCO

3.2. Chemical methods

∼0.01 μm

∼0.02 μm
0.45 μm

3.2.1. Inorganic flocculation

∼1 μm
50 kDa
0.2 μm

0.1 μm
1.2 μm
0.2 μm

0.2 μm

Natural settling of microalgae is not possible always because most of

the algal cells are small in size with a negatively charged cell surface.
So, to enhance the settling rates, pre-flocculation is generally carried
out which confirm settling rates of ≥ 0.6 cm/s [43]. The negatively
Polyvinylidene di-fluoride

polyvinylidene di-fluoride

polyvinylidene di-fluoride

charged cell surface of microalgae leads to ionization of functional

polyvinylidene fluoride
Anopore inorganic disc

Polyvinylidene floride
Various microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes used to harvest microalgae.

groups on the cell surface and tends to adsorb the ions excreted from
Membrane material

Polyvinylchloride

Polyvinylchloride
cellulose acetate

organic matter [72]. Hence, auto-aggregation is not viable because of

the repulsion of negatively charged cells. Aggregation of microalgal
cells require the negatively charged cell surface to be neutralized by the
Ceramic

addition of flocculants [72]. Charge dispersion is the concept followed

by flocculation method [73]. This harvesting method specifically causes
ionic interaction between cells and flocculants and salts existing in the
growth medium [74].
Axial vibration membrane

In all the approaches of flocculation, small algal cells suspended in

the growth medium are combined to form large aggregates followed by
Membrane filtration

the accumulation of aggregates into bigger flocs [75]. Flocculation is

Filtration method

Microfiltration

Microfiltration
Microfiltration

Microfiltration
Microfiltration

usually used in combination with other harvesting techniques [28]. The

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration

settling rate can be enhanced through flocculation as it results in the

aggregation of microalgal cells, thus increasing the size of the particles
[76]. Flocculation being able to settle huge quantities and a wide range
of microalgae becomes a superior technique to harvest algae [42]. Al-
though the flocculation process is expensive, still it has been recognized
as the most reliable method [77]. Studies found that flocculation can be
Scenedesmus quadricauda

persuaded by chemicals, both inorganic and organic, or by micro-

Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Chlorella sorokiniana

organisms, or by natural flocculants, but the retrieval and recycling of

Chlorella vulgaris
Scenedesmus sp.

the media and the flocculants may not be possible [23]. An ideal floc-
Arthrospira sp.

M. aeruginosa
C.zofingiensis
Chlorella sp.

Chlorella sp.

culant should: (a) not alter the quality of the biomass; (b) be eco-
Microalgae

friendly; (c) be inexpensive and non-toxic so that it can be applied in

Table 3

large scale; (d) permit the reusability of the culture medium [14].
Inorganic chemicals possessing multivalent cations such as ferric

6
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

chloride, ferric sulfate, and aluminum sulfate are the most widely used

[173]
[174]
[175]
[173]

[173]
[176]
[173]

[173]
[177]
[173]
[175]
[173]
[46]

[78]
Ref.
inorganic flocculants (Table 4). The addition of iron or aluminum-based
inorganic flocculants either reduces or neutralizes the negative charge

Requires high coagulant dose, risk of cell damage and contamination, pH sensitive
attributed by COOH terminal on the microalgal cell surface [31]. Dis-
Requires high coagulant dose, pH sensitive, residual iron in microalgal biomass

Requires high coagulant dose, pH sensitive, residual iron in microalgal biomass

solution of cationic salts in the growth medium releases its respective
cations, which neutralizes or reduces the electrostatic force of repulsion
between the algal cells, enabling the cells to form large flocs [73].

Risk of cell damage, requires high coagulant dose, long settling period
Flocculation efficiency of a flocculant is determined by its ionic
strength. Therefore, ferric chloride and aluminum sulfate having tri-
Microalgal biomass gets contaminated with residual aluminum
Reusability of the medium; long settling period, pH sensitive

valent cationic salts are the most widely used flocculant as compared to
Risk of cell contamination, requires high coagulant dose

divalent cationic salts [12].

Chlorella cells were more efficiently flocculated by the addition of
aluminum salts in comparison to ferric salts [78]. With respect to op-
timal flocculant dose, pH and quality of the resultant medium, alum
High coagulant dose results in cell damage

High coagulant dose results in cell damage

pH dependent, damage of microalgal cells

was found to be superior to ferric salt. The high solubility of chloride at

pH depended, and risk of contamination

a wide concentration range enables the salt to attain maximum floc-

culation efficiency as compared to sulfate salts [78]. Studies found that
lower electronegativity of CaSO4, CaCl2, MgSO4, MgCl2, (NH4)2SO4,
Requires high coagulant dose

Requires high coagulant dose

Requires high coagulant dose

and NH4Cl salts resulted in lower harvesting efficiency [78].

Harvesting of biomass by inorganic flocculation is simple, fast,
highly efficient and economical as no energy is required. However,
inorganic flocculants tend to have adverse effects on algal cells. It may
also change the colour and modify the chemical composition of the
algal growth medium, making it unsuitable for reuse [77]. Although
Features

inorganic flocculants such as iron and aluminum salts are relatively

inexpensive compared to most synthetic organic flocculants, the higher
concentration required to accomplish high flocculation efficiency ulti-
R (%)

82.60

66.60
≥90

≥85

≥95

mately increases the cost of harvesting. This also generates a huge

98

98

90

95
80
90
99
66

98

quantity of sludge [48]. Inorganic flocculants work on specific micro-

algal species. Flocculation efficiency of inorganic flocculants is low in
Process time (min)

marine water, as it tends to coil in the high ionic environment; hence,

inorganic flocculants are not suitable for harvesting marine microalgae
[22].
Comparison of several inorganic flocculants based on their efficacy of harvesting various microalgal strains.

180

240
10
10

10

10
30
10

10
15
10

10
–

3.2.2. Organic flocculants

Organic flocculants are natural or synthetic polymers that are either
Flocculant dose

branched or linear and carrying cationic, anionic or non-ionic charge

150 mg L−1

250 mg L−1

250 mg L−1

100 mg L−1

150 mg L−1
300 mg L−1
250 mg L−1

250 mg L−1
38-120 mM

5.4 mg L−1
0.1 g L−1

[79]. However, as the microalgal cell surface is negatively charged, the

1 g L−1
30 ppm

30 ppm

role of anionic or non-ionic flocculants becomes insignificant [42].

Unlike inorganic flocculants, organic polymer flocculants with varying
physicochemical properties are highly efficient even in low doses of a
3.11 ± 0.09 × 106 cells mL−1

3.11 ± 0.09 × 106 cells mL−1

few milligrams per litre, and they generate smaller sludge volume
without consumption of alkalinity [42]. Polymeric flocculants such as
cationic polymers possess the dual ability of coagulation and floccula-
220 × 106 cells mL−1
Algal concentration

tion. Coagulation is defined as a process by which a stabilized particle is

destabilized by addition of a chemical compound, i.e., coagulant. On
10-20 g L−1

the contrary, flocculation is the coalescence of separate suspended

0.54 g L−1

microalgal cells into larger loosely attached conglomerates [80]. Ca-

tionic polymers neutralize the negative charge carried on the micro-
–

–
–

–
–
–

algal cell surface and simultaneously binds to the surface of two or

more algal cells, thus, forming a bridge among the destabilized particles
Aluminum nitrate sulfate

[81].
In contrast to natural polymeric flocculants, synthetic organic
polymeric flocculants (e.g. Polyacrylamide and its derivatives) releases
very toxic monomers such as acrylamide and ethyleneimine, which may
Flocculant

Fe2(SO4)3

Fe2(SO4)3

Fe2(SO4)3

Fe2(SO4)3
Al2(SO4)3
Al2(SO4)3

cause potent neurotoxic effects [82]. However, the overall efficacy of

Alum
FeCl3

FeCl3

FeCl3

FeCl3
NH3

PAC

Polyaluminium chloride (PAC).

synthetic versus natural polymers depends on several factors such as

pH, salinity, biomass concentration, and algal organic matter (AOM)
[83]. In general, non-toxic and biodegradable natural polymeric floc-
Phaeodactylum tricornutum

Phaeodactylum tricornutum

culants such as starch, cellulose, and chitosan have received more in-
Chlorella minutissima

terest as compared to synthetic flocculants [84]. It has been reported

Chlorococcum sp.
Scenedesmus sp.

Scenedesmus sp.

that 30 ppm of cationic locust bean gum biopolymer could successfully

C. sorokiniana

C. sorokiniana

C. sorokiniana
Chlorella sp.

Chlorella sp.
Microalgae

harvest 97.42% of Scenedesmus sp. [85]. One of the major drawbacks of

S. obliquus

S. obliquus
N. salina

polymeric flocculants is that they fail to flocculate marine algae. The

Table 4

high salinity of the sea and brackish waters leads to shrinking of the
polymers to a smaller size, thus, failing to bridge the algal cells [86].

7
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

The high ionic strength of the marine environment attributes to the

[177]

[178]
[175]
[179]

[180]
[180]

[180]
[181]

[180]
[182]
[181]
[183]
[142]
Ref.
incompetence of polymeric flocculants to flocculate marine microalgae
[42]. Cationic polymers are found to be effective in flocculating mi-
croalgae when the salinity of the medium is less than 5 g L−1 [75].

Reusability of the medium; pH dependent, more feasible than

No contamination problem, pH dependent, cost prohibitive
Chitosan is a natural polymeric flocculant with enhanced cationicity

pH independent; harvested microalgal cells remains intact

Requires high coagulant dose, low toxicity, less expensive

and is efficient in flocculating both fresh and marine microalgae at low

Not effective for harvesting marine microalgae, non-

pH without contaminating the microalgal biomass [23]. However,
chitosan requires high dose (20–150 mg L−1) as compared to other
synthetic flocculants and is too expensive to be used for industrial-scale
[31]. Chitosan is replaced by cationic starch, which is not too expensive

Efficient, cost effective, pH dependent

simple, efficient, inexpensive method

simple, efficient, inexpensive method

Efficient, economical, pH dependent

and pH-dependent; however, it works at higher concentration [87].

Non-biodegradable, carcinogenic
Cellulose modification by introducing the desired functionality is a
novel approach for increasing the flocculant efficiency. Highly cationic

Poor harvesting efficiency

cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) synthesized by grafting cationic pyr-
idinium groups on CNCs isolated from cotton wool were relatively in-

Dosage-dependent
sensitive to interference by algal organic matter and was able to achieve
flocculation efficiency > 95% at a dosage of 0.1 g g−1 [88]. Recently,

biodegradable
algal harvesting via CO2-switchable 1-(3-aminopropyl)imidazole

Non-toxic
Features

chitosan
(APIm)-modified CNC was considered to be a greener and energy-effi-
cient approach as the process involved biocompatible substances such
as cellulose, CO2, and air. The CO2-switchable APIm-modified CNC

R (%)

96.5

91.8

86.5
showed strong electrostatic interaction with Chlorella vulgaris upon

90

98

98
72

90
95

88
95

95
3
CO2-treatment. Moreover, the process facilitated the reusability of re-
dispersed CNC and harvested medium for further harvesting and cul-
tivating algae, respectively [89]. Biocompatible anionic cellulose na-

Process time
nofibrils (CNF) developed from tunicate was found to be highly efficient
in harvesting microalgae and producing lipid by exploiting the size
(min)

120
15

60

60

60
30

30
30

60

30

15
effect of CNF on its geometric structure and microalgal mechan-

–
otransduction [90].
Flocculant dose

Organic flocculants can harvest huge amount of biomass easily and

1000 mg L−1

16.5 mg L−1
40 mg L−1

60 mg L−1

70 mg L−1
30 mg L−1

60 mg L−1
10 mg L−1

20 mg L−1

34 mg L−1
35 mg L−1

20 mg L−1

16 mg L−1
efficiently with no energy input. However, its commercial application is
hampered due to the high cost of organic flocculants. Organic floccu-
lants used for harvesting microalgae along with their features are de-
tailed in Table 5.
104.62 mgdry weight L−1
665 × 106 cells ml−1
Algal concentration

1 × 107 cells ml−1

1 × 107 cells ml−1

1 × 107 cells ml−1

1 × 107 cells ml−1

0.56-0.77 g L−1

3.3. Biological methods

0.12 g L−1
3.3.1. Autoflocculation
Autoflocculation of microalgae is defined as the ability of microalgal
–

–
–

–
cells to form flocs spontaneously. Some microalgae can also be seen to
flocculate in response to environmental stress such as pH, changes in
Tannin, quaternary ammonia
Evaluation of several organic flocculants based on their harvesting efficiencies.

nutrient content and dissolved oxygen [91]. Among all the harvesting
techniques, autoflocculation is the most inexpensive, eco-friendly
method, and the process holds good for reusing the medium [92]. A
Natural polymer
Polyacrylamide
Polyacrylamide

Polyacrylamide

study found that high pH, usually above pH 9 induces autoflocculation

Polyelectrolyte
Nanocellulose
Polymer type

Potato starch

[93]. In case of a high pH-induced autoflocculation, the cell wall in-

Polystyrene

teracts with divalent cations [94]. Calcium and phosphate ions get
supersaturated with the increase of pH, causing the neutralization of
salt
–

–
–
–

the microalgal cells that are negatively charged by the positively

charged calcium phosphate precipitate [12]. However, a prerequisite
Moringa oleifera seed flour

amount of phosphate (0.0031–0.0062 g L−1) and calcium (0.06–0.1 g

Hairy cationic nanocrystalline cellulose (CNCC).
POLY SEPAR® KW100
POLY SEPAR® CFL25

L−1) is required to achieve autoflocculation at 8.5–9 pH [95]. Some

Cationic polyamine

Magnafloc LT225

researchers have reported achieving 80% flocculation efficiency by

Cationic starch

Nano-chitosan

Emfloc KC750

replacing calcium and phosphate by the addition of lime [96]. A fast

Zetag 8819
Flocculants

Chitosan
polymer

and cost-effective way of harvesting can be achieved by increasing the

CNCC
EM22
A-21

pH of the medium by stopping the CO2 supply.

Knuckey et al. [97] obtained 97 ± 2% settling efficiency at pH 10
for Scenedesmus. He observed that at pH 10, the flocs lead to the for-
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Phaeodactylum tricornutum

Scenedesmus acuminatus

mation of a robust structure due to which high settling efficiency was

Chlorella sorokiniana
Nannochloropsis sp.

obtained.
Chlorella vulgaris
C. protothecoides
Scenedesmus sp.

Muriellopsis sp.

Autoflocculation is a simple, inexpensive and chemical-free non-

Chlorella sp.
Chlorella sp.

Chlorella sp.

toxic process. Nonetheless, it is not fit for industrial-scale harvesting, as

Chlorophyta
Microalgae

it is time consuming, unreliable and suits only a few microalgae species

Table 5

[92,98,99].

8
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

3.3.2. Bioflocculation

[103]
[184]

[105]
[185]

[153]
[186]

[187]

[188]
[189]
[190]
Ref.
Bioflocculation is a flocculation process where microalgal cells are
flocculated with the assistance of microorganisms [100]. In this har-

Harvested biomass can be used for feed or food

vesting process, algal cells aggregate with the microorganisms (algae,

Affects microalgal cell integrity to some extent

Biochemical composition of biomass remains

bacteria, fungi) to form large flocs and finally settle down by gravi-

Depends on extracted protein concentration

bio-flocculant can be recycled and reused
metric force without the addition of any chemical flocculants. Floccu-
lant can also be extracted from an organism to flocculate microalgae;
such a process is known as biochemical flocculation. In biochemical

Chance of fungal contamination

flocculation, microalgae flocculate with the help of the extracellular

Requires high glucose input

Reusability of the medium
polymers and proteins that are extracted from an organism [101]. The
efficiency of bioflocculation depends on the quantity of extracellular

Environment friendly

Economically viable
polysaccharides (EPS) secreted by microorganisms, attachment capa-

Optical density (OD); Poly γ-glutamic acid (γ-PGA); Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS); Polyethylenimine (PEI); Fungal spore-assisted (FSA); Fungal pellet-assisted (FPA).
city between microalgae and polymers and growth phase of the mi-

production
croorganisms [75]. Uronic acids and pyruvic acids are the most com-

Features
monly involved EPS during bioflocculation [102]. Charge

intact
neutralization, electrostatic patch or bridging are the mechanisms in-
volved in microbial bioflocculation, where the bioflocculants with po-

88 (pH 8.7)

95 (pH 7.5)
92.2 (pH 4-
sitively charged functional groups aggregate with the negatively

99 (pH 7)
charged microalgal cells [103].

90-93

64.86
R(%)

≥98
Flocculants extracted from microorganisms reduce the cost of har-

95
92

83
5)
vesting to a great extent by eliminating the need for chemical floccu-

Process time
lants. However, during bioflocculation, there is a chance of microbial

180 min

150 min
contamination. Hence, the microalgal biomass harvested through this

10 min

30 min
1 min

28 h
process is not safe for food applications. Microorganisms involved in

–
–

–
bioflocculation may even add on to the total lipid content [46]. Poly γ-

240.0 × 106 CFU mL−1

1.2 × 104 spores mL−1

1.1 × 104 spores mL−1

glutamic acid produced by Bacillus licheniformis CGMCC 2876 was
successful in harvesting Desmodesmus sp. F51 with a recovery efficiency

10 g (wet weight)
of 92% [104]. Bacillus subtilis rich in poly γ-glutamic acid
Flocculant dose

1
(19–22 mg L−1) was successful in harvesting 95% and more than 90%

0.1 mg mL−
0.1% (w/v)

2.5 mg L−1

21 mg g−1
20 mg L−1
of C. vulgaris, C. protothecoides and N. oculata LICME 002, P. tricornutum
respectively [105]. Thus, poly γ-glutamic acid facilitated biofloccula-
tion proved to be an efficient harvesting method as it does not interfere

–
with the cell integrity and the lipid content of the biomass.
Algal concentration

Further, a symbiotic relationship was observed between microalgae

1 OD @660 nm
and fungi. The fungi uptakes the nutrients especially exuded poly-
20 mg·L−1
1.2 g L−1

0.5 g L−1

1.2 g L−1
saccharides produced by microalgae during the photosynthetic process,
and in return the algae is protected from the external environment by
the fungal filaments, which also holds the culture medium, thus, pro-
–
–

–
–
viding a large area for nutrients uptake [106]. The self-pelletization
process of filamentous strains can be elucidated by either coagulative or
Proteins extracted from bio-

non-coagulative methods [107]. In coagulative process, the spores ag-

gregate with microalgae to form pellets. Aspergillus sp., Basidiomycete
sp. and Phanerochaete sp. flocculates microalgae through a coagulative
method by forming dense spherical aggregates [107]. Whereas, in non-
Flocculant type
Recovery of microalgal biomass by bio-flocculation and sedimentation.

Bioflocculant

Bioflocculant

coagulative process, the hyphae germinated from the spores interlinks

flocculants

to form aggregates. The fungal strains such as Rhizopus sp., Mucor sp.
γ-PGA

γ-PGA

and Penicillium sp. flocculates microalgae through a non-coagulative

FPA
FSA

FSA
EPS

PEI

process [107]. These non-coagulative pellet strains have lower hydro-

phobicity, shorter germination period and higher growth rate as com-
pared to coagulative pellet strains. These properties of non-coagulative
Bacteria in seafood wastewater

Tap water bacterial inoculum

pellet strains retard the spore aggregation rate and time, thereby al-
lowing the spores to germinate first and then form pellets [108,109]. It
S. bayanus var. uvarum

has been reported that Rhizopus arrhizus and Mucor rouxii spores ger-
Bacillus licheniformis
Solibacillus silvestris

Pleurotus ostreatus,

minate after 5 h of cultivation, whereas A. niger spores germinate after

Aspergillus oryzae

Escherichia coli
Bacillus subtilis

8–10 h of cultivation [110–112]. Fungus mediated flocculation does not

Penicillium sp.
Bioflocculant

require any additional energy or chemicals to be added, thus, making

effluent

the harvesting process sustainable. Table 6 details various bio-

flocculants used for recovering microalgal biomass.
Bioflocculation is an energy-efficient, eco-friendly and chemical-
Nannochloropsis oceanica

Desmodesmus brasiliensis

free process that maintains cell integrity. Nonetheless, this harvesting

Pleurochrysis carterae

Chlorella zofingiensis

process is unreliable, as the process of flocculation is uncontrolled.

Chlorella vulgaris

Chlorella vulgaris
Chlorella vulgaris

Moreover, bioflocculation requires relatively high organic carbon

C. reinhardtii

Chlorella sp.
Chlorella sp.

source to cultivate autoflocculating microorganisms (such as algae,

Microalgae

bacteria, and fungi) for flocculating microalgae. High chances of mi-

Table 6

crobiological contamination stand as the major drawback of this har-

vesting technique.

9
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

Table 7
Mechanisms of microalgal cells flocculation [23,168,169].
Mechanism Description Illustration

Charge neutralization When positively charged ions, polymers or colloids strongly adsorb onto the negatively charged surface of an algal
cell, eventually canceling the negative surface charge, the phenomenon is known as charge neutralization. This results
in the loss of electrostatic repulsion between the algal cells, which consequently forces them to flocculate.

Electrostatic patching The positively charged polymer binds to the algal cell surface and locally reverses the charge on the algal surface.
Thus, algal cells attract patches of opposite charge, resulting in flocculation of the suspended algal cells.

Bridging Cationic polymers simultaneously bind to the surface of two or more algal cells, resulting in bridge formation between
the algal cells.

Sweeping Algal cells are flocculated by entrapping the cells in a massive polymeric precipitation.

3.3.3. Factors influencing microalgal flocculation
There are four mechanisms by which microalgal cells flocculate
(Table 7). Researchers have found that characteristics of microalgal cell
surfaces play a key role in flocculation. Moreover, these characteristics
of cell surfaces differ among the species and vary within a species based
on culture conditions. Smaller algal cells require higher flocculant do-
sages to be harvested when compared to the larger cells of the same
amount because the ratio of the microalgal cell surface to biomass de-
creases with increasing cell size [91]. Flocculation is also influenced by
the varying biochemical composition of the algal cell surface [113]. The
pH of the growth medium plays an important role in flocculation by not
only altering the charge of an algal cell surface but also of chemical
flocculants. Furthermore, a large amount of AOM consisting of proteins
and polysaccharides are often excreted in the growth medium. These
organic matters may interact with flocculants and thus, inhibit floccu-
lation of algal cells [22]. The protein excreted in the medium forms
complexes with the cationic ions of most chemical flocculants whereas
polysaccharides interact with the cationic flocculants, thus, making the
flocculants unavailable for flocculating microalgal cells. The algal
growth phase plays a leading role in flocculation as pH of the culture
medium, dissolved carbon dioxide, zeta potential, and algal cell size
varies significantly throughout the growth period [75]. As these factors
tend to vary with the algal growth, it is difficult to obtain the optimum
flocculant dose. The polymer dosage plays a vital role in flocculation.
Weak polymer bridging may result if the polymer dosage is less than the
optimum amount and the potential of bridging may be impaired due to
electrostatic hindering if the dosage is too high [75]. Therefore, among
all the growth phases, the stationary phase is found to be advantageous
as the cellular metabolic activity, zeta potential and cell mobility is
lowered, and intercellular interactions are raised [30]. Studies found
that as the ionic strength of the marine water is more, so it reduces the
chemical activity of the flocculants. Hence, the marine microalgae re-
quire more flocculant dose as compared to freshwater microalgae [42].
3.4. Electrical based harvesting techniques
Electro-flocculation is a physicochemical process where an anode
such as iron or aluminum releases metal cations that induce coagulation
[42]. In the process of electro-flocculation flocculants are not required,
and the only requirement is an electricity supply [114]. In this process,
the electrodes are positioned vertically in the medium, the negatively
charged microalgae move towards the positively charged anode, re-
sulting in charge neutralization and enabling to form aggregates [115].
Electroflotation follows the same principle as electroflocculation in
which the anode is an active metal. Recently, electro-coagulation-flo-
tation (ECF) process came to limelight as an alternative to coagulation
process, in which the hydrogen bubbles generated through water
electrolysis at the anode is coupled with the electrocoagulation process
at the cathode [116].
Electrical based harvesting technique applies two types of elec-
trodes, sacrificial and non-sacrificial [42]. In the case of sacrificial
electrodes, the metal ions are released from the active anode to the
culture broth based on the current intensity of the electrolytic solution.
The released cationic metal ions then destabilize and aggregate the
anionic microalgal cells [42]. The cationic ions that are released from
the anode are not toxic as compared to chemical coagulants [117].
However, in the case of non-sacrificial electrode, the negatively charged
microalgal cells move towards the anode. Once the microalgal cells
reach the anode, they destabilize and aggregate. The use of non-sacri-
ficial electrodes leads to fouling. The material of the electrodes influ-
ences the efficiency of the electrical based harvesting process. In this
harvesting process, electrodes are most commonly made of aluminum
and iron. As compared to aluminum electrodes, iron electrodes have
lower current efficiency due to which iron electrodes dissociate to a
lower extent resulting in lower harvesting efficiency [75]. Moreover,
ferric electrode consumes more energy and ferric oxide formation re-
sults in browning of slurry. So, the aluminum electrodes have received
more attention as compared to iron electrodes [75].
Current density is inversely proportional to the harvesting period
and plays a key role in electroflocculation. Various electroflocculation
strategies are described in Table 8. With the increase in current density,
more cationic metal ions are formed at the anode by oxidation, thus,
improving the harvesting efficiency by decreasing the time required for
harvesting [75]. However, energy consumption increases with the

10
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

increase of current density. Gao et al. [116] found that energy con-

[116]

[116]

[191]
[192]
[193]
[194]

[195]
[196]

[197]
[198]
Ref.
sumption increased from 0.2 kWh m−3 to 2.28 kW h m−3 when the
current density was increased from 0.5 mA cm−2 to 5.0 mA cm−2.

Biomass quality was retained

Thus, achieving efficient harvesting with a high current density is im-

Pilot plant can be designed

Better than iron electrodes

Reusability of the medium

Electrolyte improved lipid

Lipid content not effected
practical without maintaining an equilibrium between current density

Biomass contamination

Biomass contamination
and energy consumption [75]. Mixing and settling were carried out post

Potential to sterilize
electroflocculation to reduce energy consumption. Mixing increases the
probability of cell contact and allows the cells to aggregate [75]. On the
Not efficient

wastewater
extraction.
other hand, higher harvesting efficiency with lower settling time was
Features

achieved when flotation was carried out post electroflocculation [118].

With the rise of process temperature, cell collision and their transpor-
tation rate tends to increase [116]. In a harvesting experiment con-
99 (pH 4)

83 (pH 9)
78.9 (pH

ducted by ECF technology, an increase in harvesting efficiency from

100 (pH
R (%)

95.83

> 97

46% to 98% was observed with the rise in temperature from 18 °C to

4–7)

4–7)

95.4
90

95

83
36 °C [116]. An increase in process temperature also helps in reducing
the electrolysis time as it enhances the dissolution rate of metal ions
Process time

[75]. Therefore, the reduction of electrolysis time helps to reduce the

process energy consumption.
(min)

Properties such as pH, initial cell concentration, and ionic strength

9.2
45

45

60

10

20

of the medium tend to affect the transport of algal cells [119]. The type
5
1

of metal ions formed in the electrolytic process depends on the pH of

Electrode material

the medium. In acidic conditions monomeric hydroxoaluminum ca-

inert titanium
Nonsacrificial
Magnesium

tions, aluminum hydroxide and cationic polymeric species are formed.

Aluminum

Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum

Aluminum

Aluminum

Electro-coagulation-flotation (ECF); Electro-flocculation (EF); Electro-Coagulation (EC); Dry weight (DW); Electrochemical harvesting (ECH).

These cationic species are easily absorbed by the negatively charged

iron

microalgal cells, thus, enhancing the settling process. On the other

hand, in a pH range of 8–14, monomeric hydroxoaluminum anions are
formed in the electrolytic solution, which offers resistance by de-
creasing the absorption capacity of microalgal cells [75]. Similarly, it
Cuurent/ Current

has been observed that a high initial cell density reduces the harvesting
density/ Voltage

2.9 mA cm−2

8.3 mA cm−2

5.6 mA cm−2

efficiency, as initial cationic metal ions are not sufficient for harvesting
10 mA cm−2
1 mA cm−2

−2

the excess microalgal cells. An initial cell density of 0.55 × 109 cells
1 mA cm

L−1 required only 25 min for harvesting the cells, whereas an initial cell
4.6 V

10 A
40 V

10 V

density of 2.10 × 109 cells L−1 required 75 min [116].

The high ionic strength of the marine microalgae enables them to be
Working volume

easily harvested, whereas freshwater microalgae require double energy

and settling time due to its low ionic strength [117]. As there is little
chance of flocculant contamination, the harvested biomass is safe for
1000

1000

1000

the use of animal feed or food [115]. However, electroflocculation

(mL)

600

500
900

200
90

tends to contaminate the algal slurry with the residual metals released
–

from metallic electrodes during the process. Since these trace metals
0.55 × 109–1.55 × 109 cells L−1

−1
0.55 × 10 –1.55 × 10 cells L

may impair the value of the end products, further processing may be
required [120].
9

1.84 × 107 cells mL−1

Electro-flocculation is a strain-independent and chemical-free pro-

Algal concentration

1 × 107 cells ml−1

cess. However, the high power density involved in this harvesting

2.2 ± 0.15 g L−1

process may impair cell integrity. There is also a high chance of cathode
106 cell ml−1

fouling. Thus, electro-flocculation, being a power induced process with

9
Recovery of microalgal biomass by electrical harvesting technique.

2.5 g DW

high electrophoretic equipment cost fails to be applicable for large-

scale.
–

–
Flocculation type

3.5. Magnetic particle assisted harvesting

In recent years, magnetophoretic separation of microalgae has

gained much attention due to its potential over traditional harvesting
ECH
ECF

ECF

ECF

ECF
EC
EF

EF
EF

EF

techniques. Magnetic particles assisted harvesting is based on simple

separation method in which micro or nano-sized magnetic particles are
Scenedesmus sp., Kirchneriella sp. and

adsorbed by the suspended microalgal cells [121]. The magnetic par-

ticle tagged cells are recovered based on their intrinsic paramagnetic
movement owing to the external magnetic force [122]. An ideal mag-
netic particle should be cost-effective, non-toxic, stable, reusable and
Scenedesmus acuminatus

must possess high adsorptive power for efficient harvesting.

Microcystis aeruginosa

Microcystis aeruginosa

Scenedesmus obliquus

Scenedesmus obliquus
Nannochloropsis sp.

Microalgal harvesting is generally carried out by two types of

Microcystis sp.
Chlorella vulgaris

magnetic particles, naked and surface functionalized. In the case of

C. pyrenoidosa

D. subspicatus
Microalgae

naked magnetic particles, electrostatic interactions between the nega-

tively charged algal cells and positively charged magnetic particles
Table 8

allow the microalgal cells to be harvested [123]. Naked magnetite

synthesized by different methods was found to be successful in

11
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
Fig. 2. Approaches employed to promote the attachment of magnetic nanoparticles onto microalgae; (A) attached-to strategy, (B) immobilized-on strategy.
harvesting both marine and freshwater microalgal cells [121]. Among
various magnetic nanoparticles, Fe3O4 particles were successfully used
for recovering a wide range of microalgal strains owing to its specific
surface area and super-paramagnetism [124]. Researchers found that
up to 95% of harvesting efficiencies can be obtained for freshwater
microalgal species Botryococcus braunii and Chlorella ellipsoidea, and the
marine species Nannochloropsis maritima using Fe3O4 nanoparticles
synthesized through chemical co-precipitation [124,125]. Relatively
high harvesting efficiency was attained with naked iron oxide magnetic
microparticles (IOMMs), as IOMMs releases cationic Fe ions from its
surface which acts as flocculant, thus, facilitating the harvesting process
[123]. However, the chance of biomass contamination with the re-
leased metal ions is one of the major disadvantages of this harvesting
process [126].
As the surface charge of uncoated magnetic particles is pH-depen-
dent with an isoelectric point of around 7, the uncoated surface needs to
be functionalized with cationic ions to enhance the harvesting effi-
ciency [127]. In case of surface functionalized magnetite, there are two
strategies for tagging polyelectrolyte, “attached-to” and “immobilized-
on” strategy (Fig. 2). In the “attached-to” approach, the surface of mi-
croalgal cells is coated with a polymer binder that helps attach with the
magnetic particles. In case of “immobilized-on” strategy surface of the
uncoated magnetic particles are functionalized with a polyelectrolyte
that aids the binding with the algal cells [128]. A higher harvesting
efficiency was attained with an equivalent dose of particles in the
“immobilized-on” approach compared to the “attached-to” approach
owing to the superior distribution and colloidal stability of the “im-
mobilized-on” particles [129]. Thus, the “immobilized-on” strategy is
widely used.
The “immobilized-on” approach based chitosan-Fe3O4 nanoparticle
composites were able to harvest 99% of Chlorella sp. KR-1 without al-
tering the culture medium pH. Moreover, this magnetophoretic process
showed the potential for reducing the cost of algal fuel production by
recycling the harvested medium without any adverse effects on algal
cell growth [130]. In another study, recyclable aminoclay-nanoscale
zero-valent iron (nZVI) composite was able to harvest ∼100% Chlorella
sp. KR-1 within a short time of 3 min at a > 20 g L−1 loading of the
composite under an external magnetic field [125]. Similarly, BaFe12O19
particles functionalized by (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES)
harvested 99% of Chlorella sp. KR-1 and after harvesting, the detach-
ment efficiency of BaFe12O19 particles from algae-particle conglomer-
ates was found to increase proportionally with the size of magnetic
particles [131].
12
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
This harvesting approach is highly efficient, eco-friendly, requires
low energy and enables the medium along with the nanoparticles to be
reused. However, the process requires a high dose of magnetic nano-
particles. These nanoparticles are expensive and require special
equipment for recycling them. The problems mentioned above stand as
the major drawback of this technique. Various types of magnetic par-
ticle used for recovering microalgae are evaluated in Table 9.
4. Emerging trends in harvesting biomass
Researchers are trying to investigate and develop energy-efficient
technologies to harvest microalgal biomass. Bosma et al. [132]
exploited the dielectric properties of microalgal cells using the ultra-
sound and was successful in recovering 92% of the microalgal biomass
in lab-scale. The high frequency generated during ultrasonic separation
causes the microalgal cells to shift in the direction of the nodes of the
standing waves, resulting in flocculation and sedimentation of the
biomass. Ultrasonic treatment not only helps in the recovery of the
biomass at a high-frequency regime (1–2 MHz) but also helps to lyse the
cells by cavitation and streaming at low-frequency regime (< 1 MHz)
[132,133]. Marrone et al. [133] found this harvesting technology to be
energy saving as compared to centrifugation. Moreover, NAABB Sus-
tainability Team found that a very low amount of greenhouse gases are
emitted by ultrasonic technology [133].
Super absorbent polymers provide a new approach to recover the
biomass by absorbing the water from the medium. Campo et al. [134]
performed research using a polyacrylic polymer ranging in diameter
from 2.0 mm to 2.5 mm. He observed that the polymer could absorb
water at 148 g H2O g−1 polymer allowing a volumetric concentration
factor of 60 for C. reinhardtii [134]. However, the polymer tends to get
neutralized by the medium salts, making it difficult to separate the
polymer from the biomass.
Bioreactor designs, along with the cultivation strategies may play a
vital role in harvesting microalgal biomass with minimal cost and ef-
fort. Recently, attached cultivation technology was applied which of-
fered higher aerial biomass productivity along with real scalability
prospects and this technology also saved water to a considerable extent
[135]. A study obtained high biomass productivity along with high
fatty acid yield when the microalgae cultures were grown in a thin layer
of polystyrene immobilized onto a support. In this technology, the
microalgal biomass was harvested by scrapping the support, and the
residual colonies of microalgae on the support were reused as an in-
oculum for re-growth [136].
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

Diethylaminoethyl magnetic beads (DEAE MBs); Magnetic-nanoparticle flocculants (dMNF- Fe3O4); Octyltriethoxysilane (OTES); Iron oxide magnetic microparticles (IOMMs); Iron oxide nanoparticles (NPs);
Genetic modification of microalgae through the expression or si-

[199]
[200]

[124]

[201]
[122]

[202]
[123]

[203]
[129]

[204]
Ref.
lencing of exogenous and endogenous genes respectively may improve
the flocculation process. Scholz et al. [137] flocculated 83 ± 3% of the

> 90 (pH

> 95 (pH

> 95 (pH
99 (pH 8) wall-deficient cells of the cw 15 mutant of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
under alkaline conditions, whereas only 24 ± 2% of the wildtype
R (%)

98.5

96.6
strain was flocculated under the same condition. Moreover, Sapphire

99

95

99

99
2)

8)

8)
Energy described a flocculation method in which ligand-receptor pairs
can be expressed in a sequential and non-sequential manner to induce

Complete demagnetization of cells was

flocculation in the same and different strains respectively [138]. This
shows that genetic modifications may facilitate flocculation to a great
Recovery efficiency of flocculant

extent.

5. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and technoeconomic analysis

(TEA) of the harvesting processes

Recently, LCA studies have been carried out by researchers to

achieved

evaluate the impacts of the harvesting processes on the E3 mechanism

∼97%
90%

83%

80%

(energy, economic and environmental). However, the results tend to

–

–
–

fluctuate owing to the different assumptions made about algal culti-

vation procedures, lipid content, processing scale size and application
of end products in these studies. The use of high energy, along with
Process time

high GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions during the dewatering process is

(min)

the main challenge involved during the microalgae harvesting [139]. In

5-10

1-2
10

addition to LCA, TEA is also an integral tool that establishes a capital

2

1
–

and operating cost profile to determine the economic viability of the

5 mL or 100 m L
Working volume

harvesting technique for its commercial application. However, high

variation in methodology of TEA in literature makes it difficult to draw
50 mL
10 mL

10 mL

10 mL

a conclusion over the economic feasibility of harvesting techniques.

5 mL

5 mL

Based on the economic assessment, researchers found that opera-

–

–
–

tional costs and energy consumption involved during harvesting from

closed cultivation system range below 0.5 €·kg−1 algae and
PDDA = 600 mg L−1; NPs = 20 g

2.5–50 g particles g−1 microalgae

0.5 kWh·kg−1 of algae respectively. However, for an open system the

operational cost and energy consumption increases to 0.3–2.0 €·kg−1
3:1 mass ratio of IOMMs to
1.6 g of dMNF g−1 of cells

algae and 4.5 kWh·kg− 1 algae respectively [29]. For manufacturing

0.46 g particle g−1 cell

high-value products such as nutraceuticals or nutrient supplements

30 g g−1 of cells

from microalgal biomass, centrifugation is the most reliable process.

mass ratios ≥7
Coagulant dose

However, the method is costly owing to its high energy requirement

10 mg mL−1
120 mg L−1

microalgae

[140]. Moreover, dewatering of microalgal biomass by using centrifuge

generates 398.48g CO2 eq per MJ of algae biodiesel, whereas 241.87g
L−1

CO2 eq per MJ of algae biodiesel is generated when filter press is ap-

–

plied for dewatering [125]. Collotta et al. [141] carried out a com-
Algal concentration

1.3-1.5 g cells L−1

parative LCA using the SimaPro software in order to assess environ-

mental impacts resulting from the use of two microalgal harvesting
Recovery of microalgal biomass by magnetic particle facilitated techniques.

∼2 g L−1

strategies: (a) flocculation followed by centrifugation and (b) direct

0.2 g L−1

1.6 g L−1
0.3 g L−1

centrifugation. Sole centrifugation appeared to be more detrimental for

the environment when compared to the flocculation scenario.
–

Polyelectrolyte poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDDA).

Brentner and colleagues also performed a comparative LCA analysis

Fe3O4-embedded carbon microparticle
Silica-coated magnetic particles called

on three harvesting technologies: centrifugation, filtration and floccu-

Bare-Fe3O4 magnetic particles (bMP)
CTAB-decorated Fe3O4 nanoparticles
dMNF coated with APTES and OTES

lation, the results indicated that flocculation is the most suitable har-
vesting technique as it has the lowest energy demand and environ-
Uncoated Iron oxide particles

mental impacts [127]. On the other hand, a study by Granados et al.

[142] found that during flocculation the algal cake is contaminated by
Naked Fe3O4 particles

the flocculants and so it cannot be re-used, and hence it is disposed of in

the environment. Although flocculation exerts a least negative effect on
NPs with PDDA
Flocculant type

the environment, a major impact is afflicted by the choice of flocculant

DEAE MBs

MagSilica

[143]. In contrast, harvesting of microalgal biomass through cen-

IOMMs

trifugation does not require the addition of flocculants, and so the algal
cake is digested anaerobically for energy recovery. During flocculation
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

process, the cost of operation is significantly increased due to the ad-

Nannochloropsis maritima
Nannochloropsis oceanica

dition of flocculants, such as metals, that may have a negative impact

on the quality of the products or affect the equipment involved in the
Chlorella sp. KR-1

Chlorella sp. KR-1

Chlorella sp. KR-1

Chlorella sp. KR-1
Chlorella vulgaris

Chlorella vulgaris

conversion process [86]. Chitosan can be used as the flocculant as it is

Chlorella sp.
Microalgae

non-toxic, organic and possess the potential to break down in down-

stream operations such as anaerobic digestion. Heasman et al. [49]
Table 9

found that 2 mg L−1 to 200 mg L−1 is the optimal chitosan loading rate
depending on the algal species. The cost of chitosan is estimated to be

13
M. Roy and K. Mohanty Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683

eliminates the use of chemicals to concentrate the microalgal biomass

Fig. 3. Effect of algae concentration after harvesting on the total costs for the
combination of pressure filtration to 10% dry matter and centrifugal dewa-
tering to 15% dry matter (Adapted from Ref. [29]).
$18/kg according to the information obtained from industrial grade
chitosan suppliers [144].
In a harvesting experiment, Aragon et al. [145] found that elec-
trolytic methods such as electrocoagulation, electroflotation, and elec-
troflocculation were superior to chemical flocculation as the electrolytic
methods required shorter separation time and is less likely to be con-
taminated by metallic hydroxides. Electrolytic methods require low
current strength to attain effective coagulation. Each of the electrolytic
approaches has the potential for scale-up. Although polymeric mem-
branes are natural candidates for microalgal filtration, membrane
fouling is a major drawback [146]. Research found that ceramic and
metallic inorganic membranes are better than polymeric membranes
because of higher water flux and biofouling resistance. In membrane
technology, the energy is consumed because of the pressure gradient,
which is generated across the membrane, due to various membrane
properties. For an assumed pressure gradient, the cost of harvesting is
found to decrease proportionally with increasing membrane perme-
ability. As compared to the cross-flow filtration cost, the energy con-
sumed, and the cost for dewatering the concentrated sludge seems to be
insignificant. Thus, membrane technology has the potential for har-
vesting with a small level of energy consumption [147]. The application
of ultrasonic technology for harvesting microalgal biomass has many
advantages over conventional methods. Ultrasonic technology
making the downstream products free of contamination. The medium
can be recycled and reused after the microalgal biomass is harvested
through ultrasonic technology. Coons et al. [148] found that the ul-
trasonic process is environmental-friendly and cost-effective since the
process is capable of meeting both National Alliance for Advanced
Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB) and National Algal Biofuels Tech-
nology Roadmap (NABTR) targets as compared to other conventional
methods such as centrifugation, coagulation, flocculation, filtration and
flotation.
The impact of post-harvesting algae concentration on total cost is
detailed in Fig. 3. It was seen that post-harvesting algae concentration is
inversely proportional to the total cost involved. Low investment costs
along with lower energy consumption by the smaller equipment in the
dewatering step are the possible reasons for reduction in total cost.
However, reduction in cost was found to be negligible beyond har-
vesting concentration of 50 kg m− 3. Fasaei et al. [29] also concluded
that same trends could be seen for all other harvesting and dewatering
scenarios.
Detailed LCA and TEA studies for the harvesting techniques dis-
cussed in this paper is not available yet. As new harvesting strategies
are being developed and very limited data on LCA and TEA are avail-
able (Table 10), these studies need to be carried out to validate the
methods for their energy efficiency and overall sustainability.
6. Conclusions and future prospects
Each of the aforementioned techniques works on its own principle,
and so has its own merits. But, till date, there is no specific method or
combination of harvesting methods available for harvesting different
types of microalgae. All harvesting methods concentrate the microalgal
biomass to a certain extent, and this concentrated biomass is then
further dried to extract the desired product. High quality and quantity
of microalgal biomass can be recovered without the addition of che-
micals by using physical harvesting methods. As there are minimal
chances of contamination when the biomass is harvested via the pro-
cesses mentioned above, the extract from the biomass can be used for
high-value products. However, physical methods require high operating
cost and time, making the process economically unfeasible. In chemical
harvesting methods, the use of chemical flocculants or coagulants

Table 10
LCA and TEA of various types of microalgal harvesting technologies.
Harvesting method Microalgae sp. Harvesting Energy required Estimated cost GHG (gCO2-eq Ref.
efficiency (%) MJ−1)

Sedimentation – – 0.05-0.1 kW h m−3 – 2.11-28 [205]

Centrifugation Nannochloris sp. 94-99 0.70-1.30 kW h m−3 US$0.864 L−1 of oil 242 [51]
Flotation – 49.5 0.16-0.44 kW h kg−1 €0.02-0.04 kg−1 57.8-80 [206]
DW
Filtration
PVDF membrane – 98-99 0.91 kW h m−3 – – [207]
PNM membrane Scenedesmus obliquus 94 – US$0.048 kg−1 – [208]
Tangential flow filtration Tetraselmis suecica 89 3.58 kW h kg−1 – 40-45.4 [30]
Inorganic flocculants
Alum – 66-82 – US$0.4-2.1 kg−1 1.26-36 [175]
Organic flocculants
−1
Chitosan Scenedesmus sp. 92 – €2-100 kg 8.88-56 [175]
Organic polymer Scenedesmus sp. 80 36.81 kW h kg−1 – – [30]
Autoflocculation
pH modification Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus sp., 90 0.02–0.2 kW h m−3 US$0.13 kg−1 10 [80]
Chlorococcum sp.
Electrical based harvesting
Electrochemical (non-sacrificing carbon Chlorella sorokiniana 94.52 1.6 kW h kg−1 – – [209]
electrode)
Electrocoagulation-flocculation (Al and – 90 2 kW h kg−1 – 47.9 [23]
Fe electrodes)
Electrocoagulation (polarity exchange) Nannochloris oculata 90 1.08 kW h kg−1 – – [210]
Magnetic particle assisted harvesting Botryococcus braunii 98 6.5 kW h m−3 – 65 [125,149]

14
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
makes the quality and quantity of the recovered biomass comparatively
inferior. On the other hand, in case of biological harvesting methods,
there is a risk of microbiological contamination and the process re-
quires a high organic carbon source for cultivating the bioflocculants.
Electrical based harvesting methods lag behind due to high operating
cost and fouling or corrosion of electrodes. Although the magneto-
phoretic separation of microalgae is superior to traditional harvesting
methods, still there is a need to decrease the cost of harvesting process
for the industrial-scale application.
Most of the harvesting techniques were carried out in lab-scale and
therefore, outdoor compatibility of the various harvesting techniques
needs to be evaluated. Based on the above problems, either employ-
ment of a combination of harvesting processes or alteration of genetic
properties through genetic engineering would be the best solution to
attain enhanced harvesting efficiency at reduced operational costs.
Commercially potential microalgal species can be genetically en-
gineered for enhanced autoflocculation via recombinant DNA tech-
nology. This can be accomplished by identifying the gene responsible
for autoflocculation in some specific microalgal species and tailoring
them into a desired algal species via modern genetic tools. Ongoing
research should aim to develop an economically sustainable harvesting
process based on the physical properties of microalgae, the chemical
composition of culture medium and quality of the end product. At the
current stage, a leap of faith is required for developing a sustainable
harvesting method.
Statement of informed consent, human/animal rights
No conflicts, informed consent, human or animal rights applicable.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There is no conflict of interest to declare.
Acknowledgment
The research was financially supported by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, through its
IMPRINT-1 initiative (Grant No. 7698).
References
[1] J.J. Creasey, A. Chieregato, J.C. Manayil, C.M.A. Parlett, K. Wilson, A.F. Lee,
Alkali- and nitrate-free synthesis of highly active Mg–Al hydrotalcite-coated alu-
mina for FAME production, Catal. Sci. Technol. 4 (2014) 861–870, https://doi.
org/10.1039/C3CY00902E.
[2] H. Balat, Prospects of biofuels for a sustainable energy future: a critical assess-
ment, Energy Educ, Sci. Technol. Part A-Energy Sci. Res. 24 (2010) 85–111.
[3] S. Hemaiswarya, R. Raja, I.S. Carvalho, R. Ravikumar, V. Zambare, D. Barh, An
Indian scenario on renewable and sustainable energy sources with emphasis on
algae, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 96 (2012) 1125–1135, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00253-012-4487-0.
[4] A.H. Demirbas, Inexpensive oil and fats feedstocks for production of biodiesel,
Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. Part A-Energy Sci. Res. 23 (2009) 1–13.
[5] S. Mishra, K. Mohanty, Comprehensive characterization of microalgal isolates and
lipid-extracted biomass as zero-waste bioenergy feedstock: an integrated bior-
emediation and biorefinery approach, Bioresour. Technol. 273 (2019) 177–184,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.012.
[6] C.M. Monteiro, P.M.L. Castro, F.X. Malcata, Metal uptake by microalgae: under-
lying mechanisms and practical applications, Biotechnol. Prog. 28 (2012)
299–311.
[7] M.A. Borowitzka, High-value products from microalgae—their development and
commercialisation, J. Appl. Phycol. 25 (2013) 743–756.
[8] R. Raja, S. Hemaiswarya, R. Rengasamy, Exploitation of Dunaliella for $β$-car-
otene production, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 74 (2007) 517–523, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00253-006-0777-8.
[9] R. Vazhappilly, F. Chen, Eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid pro-
duction potential of microalgae and their heterotrophic growth, J. Am. Oil Chem.
Soc. 75 (1998) 393–397, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-998-0057-0.
[10] M. Olaizola, Commercial production of astaxanthin from Haematococcus pluvialis
using 25,000-liter outdoor photobioreactors, J. Appl. Phycol. 12 (2000) 499–506,
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008159127672.
[11] S. Basu, A.S. Roy, K. Mohanty, A.K. Ghoshal, Enhanced CO2 sequestration by a
novel microalga: scenedesmus obliquus SA1 isolated from bio-diversity hotspot
region of Assam, India, Bioresour. Technol. 143 (2013) 369–377, https://doi.org/
15
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.010.
[12] L. Christenson, R. Sims, Production and harvesting of microalgae for wastewater
treatment, biofuels, and bioproducts, Biotechnol. Adv. 29 (2011) 686–702,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.05.015.
[13] V. Kumar, M. Muthuraj, B. Palabhanvi, A.K. Ghoshal, D. Das, High cell density
lipid rich cultivation of a novel microalgal isolate Chlorella sorokiniana FC6 IITG
in a single-stage fed-batch mode under mixotrophic condition, Bioresour. Technol.
170 (2014) 115–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.066.
[14] E.M. Grima, E.-H. Belarbi, F.G.A. Fernández, A.R. Medina, Y. Chisti, Recovery of
microalgal biomass and metabolites: process options and economics, Biotechnol.
Adv. 20 (2003) 491–515.
[15] L. Amer, B. Adhikari, J. Pellegrino, Technoeconomic analysis of five microalgae-
to-biofuels processes of varying complexity, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011)
9350–9359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.08.010.
[16] R. Henderson, S.A. Parsons, B. Jefferson, The impact of algal properties and pre-
oxidation on solid–liquid separation of algae, Water Res. 42 (2008) 1827–1845,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.11.039.
[17] J.F. Sánchez, J.M. Fernández-Sevilla, F.G. Acién, M.C. Cerón, J. Pérez-Parra,
E. Molina-Grima, Biomass and lutein productivity of Scenedesmus almeriensis:
influence of irradiance, dilution rate and temperature, Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 79 (2008) 719–729, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-008-1494-2.
[18] G.O. James, C.H. Hocart, W. Hillier, G.D. Price, M.A. Djordjevic, Temperature
modulation of fatty acid profiles for biofuel production in nitrogen deprived
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Bioresour. Technol. 127 (2013) 441–447, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.090.
[19] M.L. Gerardo, S. Van Den Hende, H. Vervaeren, T. Coward, S.C. Skill, Harvesting
of microalgae within a biorefinery approach: a review of the developments and
case studies from pilot-plants, Algal Res. 11 (2015) 248–262, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.algal.2015.06.019.
[20] M.L. Gerardo, S. Van Den Hende, H. Vervaeren, T. Coward, S.C. Skill, Harvesting
of microalgae within a biorefinery approach: a review of the developments and
case studies from pilot-plants, Algal Res. 11 (2015) 248–262, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.algal.2015.06.019.
[21] H.C. Greenwell, L.M.L. Laurens, R.J. Shields, R.W. Lovitt, K.J. Flynn, Placing mi-
croalgae on the biofuels priority list: a review of the technological challenges, J. R.
Soc. Interface 7 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2009.0322.
[22] X. Zhang, P. Amendola, J.C. Hewson, M. Sommerfeld, Q. Hu, Influence of growth
phase on harvesting of Chlorella zofingiensis by dissolved air flotation, Bioresour.
Technol. 116 (2012) 477–484.
[23] D. Vandamme, I. Foubert, K. Muylaert, Flocculation as a low-cost method for
harvesting microalgae for bulk biomass production, Trends Biotechnol. 31 (2013)
233–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.12.005.
[24] R. Beckett, N.P. Le, The role or organic matter and ionic composition in de-
termining the surface charge of suspended particles in natural waters, Colloids
Surf. 44 (1990) 35–49.
[25] A. Paralkar, J.K. Edzwald, Effect of ozone on EOM and coagulation, Am. Water
Work. Assoc. J. 88 (1996) 143.
[26] D. Kaplan, D. Christiaen, S. Arad, Binding of heavy metals by algal poly-
saccharides, Algal Biotechnol. (1988) by T. Stadler…[et al.].
[27] J.E. Gregor, E. Fenton, G. Brokenshire, P. Van Den Brink, B. O’sullivan,
Interactions of calcium and aluminium ions with alginate, Water Res. 30 (1996)
1319–1324.
[28] L. Brennan, P. Owende, Biofuels from microalgae-a review of technologies for
production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.009.
[29] F. Fasaei, J.H. Bitter, P.M. Slegers, A.J.B. van Boxtel, Techno-economic evaluation
of microalgae harvesting and dewatering systems, Algal Res. 31 (2018) 347–362,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.11.038.
[30] M.K. Danquah, L. Ang, N. Uduman, N. Moheimani, G.M. Forde, Dewatering of
microalgal culture for biodiesel production: exploring polymer flocculation and
tangential flow filtration, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 84 (2009) 1078–1083.
[31] C.Y. Chen, K.L. Yeh, R. Aisyah, D.J. Lee, J.S. Chang, Cultivation, photobioreactor
design and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: a critical review,
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 71–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.
06.159.
[32] J.J. Milledge, S. Heaven, A review of the harvesting of micro-algae for biofuel
production, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 12 (2013) 165–178, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11157-012-9301-z.
[33] F.J. Millero, F.K. Lepple, The density and expansibility of artificial seawater so-
lutions from 0 to 40°C and 0 to 21‰ chlorinity, Mar. Chem. 1 (1973) 89–104,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4203(73)90009-1.
[34] T.J. SMAYDA, The suspension and sinking of phytoplankton in the sea, Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 8 (1970) 353–414.
[35] E.T. Van Ierland, L. Peperzak, Separation of marine seston and density determi-
nation of marine diatoms by density gradient centrifugation, J. Plankton Res. 6
(1984) 29–44.
[36] T.M. Cole, E.M. Buchak, CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-dimensional, Laterally Averaged
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 2.0, Draft User Manual,
Instruction Report EL-95-1, Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, 1995.
[37] C.S. Reynolds, The Ecology of Freshwater Phytoplankton, Cambridge University
Press, 1984.
[38] L. Peperzak, F. Colijn, R. Koeman, W.W.C. Gieskes, J.C.A. Joordens,
Phytoplankton sinking rates in the Rhine region of freshwater influence, J.
Plankton Res. 25 (2003) 365–383, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/25.4.365.
[39] S.K. Choi, J.Y. Lee, D.Y. Kwon, K.J. Cho, Settling characteristics of problem algae
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
in the water treatment process, Water Sci. Technol. 53 (2006) 113–119, https://
doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.214.
[40] A.M. Waite, P.A. Thompson, P.J. Harrison, Does energy control the sinking rates of
marine diatoms? Limnol. Oceanogr. 37 (1992) 468–477, https://doi.org/10.4319/
lo.1992.37.3.0468.
[41] P.K. Bienfang, Sinking rates of heterogeneous, temperate phytoplankton popula-
tions, J. Plankton Res. 3 (1981) 235–253, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/3.2.
235.
[42] N. Uduman, Y. Qi, M.K. Danquah, G.M. Forde, A. Hoadley, Dewatering of mi-
croalgal cultures: a major bottleneck to algae-based fuels, J. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 2 (2010) 12701.
[43] P. Collet, A. Hélias, L. Lardon, M. Ras, R.-A. Goy, J.-P. Steyer, Life-cycle assess-
ment of microalgae culture coupled to biogas production, Bioresour. Technol. 102
(2011) 207–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.154.
[44] A. Singh, P.S. Nigam, J.D. Murphy, Renewable fuels from algae: an answer to
debatable land based fuels, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 10–16.
[45] S. Van Den Hende, H. Vervaeren, S. Desmet, N. Boon, Bioflocculation of micro-
algae and bacteria combined with flue gas to improve sewage treatment, N.
Biotechnol. 29 (2011) 23–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2011.04.009.
[46] F. Chen, Z. Liu, D. Li, C. Liu, P. Zheng, S. Chen, Using ammonia for algae har-
vesting and as nutrient in subsequent cultures, Bioresour. Technol. 121 (2012)
298–303.
[47] G. Shelef, A. Sukenik, M. Green, Microalgae Harvesting and Processing: A
Literature Review, Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd., Haifa
(Israel), 1984.
[48] F.H. Mohn, Harvesting of micro-algal biomass, Micro-Algal Biotechnol. (1988)
395–414.
[49] M. Heasman, J. Diemar, W. O’connor, T. Sushames, L. Foulkes, Development of
extended shelf‐life microalgae concentrate diets harvested by centrifugation for
bivalve molluscs–a summary, Aquac. Res. 31 (2000) 637–659.
[50] E.W. Becker, Microalgae: Biotechnology and Microbiology, Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
[51] A.J. Dassey, C.S. Theegala, Harvesting economics and strategies using cen-
trifugation for cost effective separation of microalgae cells for biodiesel applica-
tions, Bioresour. Technol. 128 (2013) 241–245.
[52] A. Singh, P.S. Nigam, J.D. Murphy, Mechanism and challenges in commerciali-
sation of algal biofuels, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 26–34, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2010.06.057.
[53] J.K. Edzwald, Algae, bubbles, coagulants, and dissolved air flotation, Water Sci.
Technol. 27 (1993).
[54] G. Shelef, A. Sukenik, M. Green, Separation and harvesting of marine microalgal
biomass, Algal Biomass Technol. J. Cramer Color (1984).
[55] W.J. Oswald, Large-scale algal culture systems (engineering aspects), Micro-Algal
Biotechnol. (1988) 357–394.
[56] Z. Huang, C. Cheng, L. Li, Z. Guo, G. He, X. Yu, R. Liu, H. Han, L. Deng, W. Fu,
Morpholine-based gemini surfactant: synthesis and its application for reverse froth
flotation of carnallite ore in potassium fertilizer production, J. Agric. Food Chem.
66 (2018) 13126–13132, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05560.
[57] Z. Huang, C. Cheng, Z. Liu, W. Luo, H. Zhong, G. He, C. Liang, L. Li, L. Deng, W. Fu,
Gemini surfactant: a novel flotation collector for harvesting of microalgae by froth
flotation, Bioresour. Technol. 275 (2019) 421–424, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2018.12.106.
[58] A. Goh, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA, 5–7 Apr. 1984Production of
Microalgae Using Pig Waste as a Substrate: Presented… at Algal Biomass
Workshop1984, Production of Microalgae Using Pig Waste as a Substrate:
Presented… at Algal Biomass Workshop (1984).
[59] J. Hanotu, H.C. Bandulasena, W.B. Zimmerman, Microflotation performance for
algal separation, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 109 (2012) 1663–1673.
[60] G. Luísa, SpringerBriefs in Microbiology, (2011), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
642-17997-6.
[61] W.B. Zimmerman, B.N. Hewakandamby, V. Tesař, H.C.H. Bandulasena,
O.A. Omotowa, On the design and simulation of an airlift loop bioreactor with
microbubble generation by fluidic oscillation, Food Bioprod. Process. 87 (2009)
215–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2009.03.006.
[62] J.J. Milledge, S. Heaven, A review of the harvesting of micro-algae for biofuel
production, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 12 (2013) 165–178, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11157-012-9301-z.
[63] M. Cheryan, Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook, Technomic Publ. Co.,
Urbana, Illinois, USA, 1998, pp. 245–267 (n.d.).
[64] J.F. Richardson, J.M. Coulson, Chemical Engineering: Particle Technology and
Seraration Processes, Elsevier Engineering Information, Incorporated, 2002.
[65] M.L. Gerardo, D.L. Oatley-Radcliffe, R.W. Lovitt, Integration of membrane tech-
nology in microalgae biorefineries, J. Memb. Sci. 464 (2014) 86–99.
[66] S. Zou, Y. Gu, D. Xiao, C.Y. Tang, The role of physical and chemical parameters on
forward osmosis membrane fouling during algae separation, J. Memb. Sci. 366
(2011) 356–362.
[67] N. Rossi, P. Jaouen, P. Legentilhomme, I. Petit, Harvesting of cyanobacterium
Arthrospira platensis using organic filtration membranes, Food Bioprod. Process.
82 (2004) 244–250.
[68] R. Bhave, T. Kuritz, L. Powell, D. Adcock, Membrane-based energy efficient de-
watering of microalgae in biofuels production and recovery of value added co-
products, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 5599–5606.
[69] X. Zhang, Q. Hu, M. Sommerfeld, E. Puruhito, Y. Chen, Harvesting algal biomass
for biofuels using ultrafiltration membranes, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010)
5297–5304.
[70] S.D. Ríos, J. Salvadó, X. Farriol, C. Torras, Antifouling microfiltration strategies to
16
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
harvest microalgae for biofuel, Bioresour. Technol. 119 (2012) 406–418, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.044.
[71] N.F.M. Khairuddin, A. Idris, L.W. Hock, Harvesting nannochloropsis sp. using PES/
MWCNT/LiBr membrane with good antifouling properties, Sep. Purif. Technol.
212 (2019) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.11.013.
[72] C.-Y. Chen, K.-L. Yeh, R. Aisyah, D.-J. Lee, J.-S. Chang, Cultivation, photo-
bioreactor design and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: a critical
review, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 71–81.
[73] I. Rawat, R.R. Kumar, T. Mutanda, F. Bux, Dual role of microalgae: phycor-
emediation of domestic wastewater and biomass production for sustainable bio-
fuels production, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 3411–3424, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2010.11.025.
[74] N. Pragya, K.K. Pandey, P.K. Sahoo, A review on harvesting, oil extraction and
biofuels production technologies from microalgae, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24
(2013) 159–171.
[75] A.I. Barros, A.L. Gonçalves, M. Simões, J.C.M. Pires, Harvesting techniques applied
to microalgae: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 1489–1500,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.037.
[76] T.M. Mata, A.A. Martins, N.S. Caetano, Microalgae for biodiesel production and
other applications: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.020.
[77] J. Benemann, B. Koopman, J. Weissman, D. Eisenberg, R. Goebel, Development of
microalgae harvesting and high-rate pond technologies in California, algae bio-
mass prod. use/[Sponsored by Natl. Counc. Res. Dev. Isr. Gesellschaft Fur
Strahlen-Und Umweltforsch. (GSF), Munich, Ger. Ed. Gedaliah Shelef], Carl J.
Soeder (1980).
[78] A. Papazi, P. Makridis, P. Divanach, Harvesting Chlorella minutissima using cell
coagulants, J. Appl. Phycol. 22 (2010) 349–355, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-
009-9465-2.
[79] N. Rashid, M.S.U. Rehman, M. Sadiq, T. Mahmood, J.-I. Han, Current status, issues
and developments in microalgae derived biodiesel production, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 40 (2014) 760–778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.104.
[80] Z. Wu, Y. Zhu, W. Huang, C. Zhang, T. Li, Y. Zhang, A. Li, Evaluation of floccu-
lation induced by pH increase for harvesting microalgae and reuse of flocculated
medium, Bioresour. Technol. 110 (2012) 496–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.01.101.
[81] C.S. Lee, J. Robinson, M.F. Chong, A review on application of flocculants in
wastewater treatment, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 92 (2014) 489–508, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.04.010.
[82] V.H. Dao, N.R. Cameron, K. Saito, Synthesis{,} properties and performance of
organic polymers employed in flocculation applications, Polym. Chem. 7 (2016)
11–25, https://doi.org/10.1039/C5PY01572C.
[83] F. Roselet, D. Vandamme, M. Roselet, K. Muylaert, P.C. Abreu, Effects of pH,
salinity, biomass concentration, and algal organic matter on flocculant efficiency
of synthetic versus natural polymers for harvesting microalgae biomass, Bioenergy
Res. 10 (2017) 427–437, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9806-3.
[84] K. Sievänen, J. Kavakka, P. Hirsilä, P. Vainio, K. Karisalmi, J. Fiskari,
I. Kilpeläinen, Cationic cellulose betainate for wastewater treatment, Cellulose 22
(2015) 1861–1872, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0578-2.
[85] N. Kumar, C. Banerjee, N. Kumar, S. Jagadevan, A novel non-starch based cationic
polymer as flocculant for harvesting microalgae, Bioresour. Technol. 271 (2019)
383–390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.073.
[86] A. Schlesinger, D. Eisenstadt, A. Bar-Gil, H. Carmely, S. Einbinder, J. Gressel,
Inexpensive non-toxic flocculation of microalgae contradicts theories; overcoming
a major hurdle to bulk algal production, Biotechnol. Adv. 30 (2012) 1023–1030,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.01.011.
[87] K. Muylaert, D. Vandamme, B. Meesschaert, I. Foubert, Flocculation of microalgae
using cationic starch, in: phycologia, Int. Phycol. soc. (2009) 63.
[88] D. Vandamme, S. Eyley, G. Van den Mooter, K. Muylaert, W. Thielemans, Highly
charged cellulose-based nanocrystals as flocculants for harvesting Chlorella vul-
garis, Bioresour. Technol. 194 (2015) 270–275.
[89] S. Ge, P. Champagne, H. Wang, P.G. Jessop, M.F. Cunningham, Microalgae re-
covery from water for biofuel production using CO2-switchable crystalline nano-
cellulose, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 7896–7903.
[90] S. Il Yu, S.K. Min, H.S. Shin, Nanocellulose size regulates microalgal flocculation
and lipid metabolism, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 35684.
[91] P.M. Schenk, S.R. Thomas-Hall, E. Stephens, U.C. Marx, J.H. Mussgnug, C. Posten,
O. Kruse, B. Hankamer, Second generation biofuels: high-efficiency microalgae for
biodiesel production, Bioenergy Res. 1 (2008) 20–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12155-008-9008-8.
[92] J.-I. Horiuchi, I. Ohba, K. Tada, M. Kobayashi, T. Kanno, M. Kishimoto, Effective
cell harvesting of the halotolerant microalga Dunaliella tertiolecta with pH con-
trol, J. Biosci. Bioeng. 95 (2003) 412–415, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-
1723(03)80078-6.
[93] K. Spilling, J. Seppälä, T. Tamminen, Inducing autoflocculation in the diatom
Phaeodactylum tricornutum through CO2 regulation, J. Appl. Phycol. 23 (2011)
959–966.
[94] R. Munoz, B. Guieysse, Algal–bacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous
contaminants: a review, Water Res. 40 (2006) 2799–2815.
[95] A. Sukenik, G. Shelef, Algal autoflocculation—verification and proposed me-
chanism, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 26 (1984), https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260260206.
[96] Y. Nurdogan, W.J. Oswald, Enhanced nutrient removal in high-rate ponds, Water
Sci. Technol. 31 (1995) 33–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223(95)00490-E.
[97] R.M. Knuckey, M.R. Brown, R. Robert, D.M.F. Frampton, Production of microalgal
concentrates by flocculation and their assessment as aquaculture feeds, Aquac.
Eng. 35 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.04.001.
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
[98] S. Salim, M.H. Vermuë, R.H. Wijffels, Ratio between autoflocculating and target
microalgae affects the energy-efficient harvesting by bio-flocculation, Bioresour.
Technol. 118 (2012) 49–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.007.
[99] S. Koley, S. Prasad, S.K. Bagchi, N. Mallick, Development of a harvesting technique
for large-scale microalgal harvesting for biodiesel production, RSC Adv. 7 (2017)
7227–7237, https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA27286J.
[100] J. Lee, D.-H. Cho, R. Ramanan, B.-H. Kim, H.-M. Oh, H.-S. Kim, Microalgae-as-
sociated bacteria play a key role in the flocculation of Chlorella vulgaris,
Bioresour. Technol. 131 (2013) 195–201.
[101] J.A. Gerde, T. Wang, L. Yao, S. Jung, L.A. Johnson, B. Lamsal, Optimizing protein
isolation from defatted and non-defatted Nannochloropsis microalgae biomass,
Algal Res. 2 (2013) 145–153.
[102] B. Frølund, R. Palmgren, K. Keiding, P.H. Nielsen, Extraction of extracellular
polymers from activated sludge using a cation exchange resin, Water Res. 30
(1996) 1749–1758, https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(95)00323-1.
[103] C. Wan, X.-Q. Zhao, S.-L. Guo, M.A. Alam, F.-W. Bai, Bioflocculant production
from Solibacillus silvestris W01 and its application in cost-effective harvest of
marine microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica by flocculation, Bioresour. Technol.
135 (2013) 207–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.004.
[104] T. Ndikubwimana, X. Zeng, Y. Liu, J.-S. Chang, Y. Lu, Harvesting of microalgae
Desmodesmus sp. F51 by bioflocculation with bacterial bioflocculant, Algal Res. 6
(2014) 186–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.09.004.
[105] H. Zheng, Z. Gao, J. Yin, X. Tang, X. Ji, H. Huang, Harvesting of microalgae by
flocculation with poly (γ-glutamic acid), Bioresour. Technol. 112 (2012) 212–220,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.086.
[106] W. Zhou, Y. Cheng, Y. Li, Y. Wan, Y. Liu, X. Lin, R. Ruan, Novel fungal pelleti-
zation-assisted technology for algae harvesting and wastewater treatment, Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 167 (2012) 214–228, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-012-
9667-y.
[107] S.O. Gultom, B. Hu, Review of microalgae harvesting via co-pelletization with
filamentous fungus, Energies 6 (2013) 5921–5939, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en6115921.
[108] O.M.H. de Vries, M.P. Fekkes, H.A.B. Wösten, J.G.H. Wessels, Insoluble hydro-
phobin complexes in the walls of Schizophyllum commune and other filamentous
fungi, Arch. Microbiol. 159 (1993) 330–335, https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00290915.
[109] A.P.J. Trinci, A study of the kinetics of hyphal extension and branch initiation of
fungal mycelia, Microbiology 81 (1974) 225–236.
[110] P.-J. Lin, L.H. Grimm, M. Wulkow, D.C. Hempel, R. Krull, Population balance
modeling of the conidial aggregation of Aspergillus niger, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 99
(2008) 341–350, https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21569.
[111] M.C. Morrin, Relationship Between Mycelial Morphology, Cell Wall Composition
and Product Formation of Rhizopus Arrhizus, (1989).
[112] S. Bartnicki-Garcia, N. Nelson, E. Cota-Robles, Electron microscopy of spore ger-
mination and cell wall formation in Mucor rouxii, Arch. Mikrobiol. 63 (1968)
242–255.
[113] R.K. Henderson, A. Baker, S.A. Parsons, B. Jefferson, Characterisation of algogenic
organic matter extracted from cyanobacteria, green algae and diatoms, Water Res.
42 (2008) 3435–3445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.10.032.
[114] A.K. Patel, C. Laroche, A. Marcati, A.V. Ursu, S. Jubeau, L. Marchal, E. Petit,
G. Djelveh, P. Michaud, Separation and fractionation of exopolysaccharides from
Porphyridium cruentum, Bioresour. Technol. 145 (2013) 345–350.
[115] E. Poelman, N. De Pauw, B. Jeurissen, Potential of electrolytic flocculation for
recovery of micro-algae, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 19 (1997), https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0921-3449(96)01156-1.
[116] S. Gao, J. Yang, J. Tian, F. Ma, G. Tu, M. Du, Electro-coagulation–flotation process
for algae removal, J. Hazard. Mater. 177 (2010) 336–343, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.037.
[117] A. Zenouzi, B. Ghobadian, M.A. Hejazi, P. Rahnemoon, Harvesting of microalgae
Dunaliella salina using electroflocculation, J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 15 (2013),
http://journals.modares.ac.ir/article-23-4125-en.html.
[118] A.K. Lee, D.M. Lewis, P.J. Ashman, Harvesting of marine microalgae by electro-
flocculation: the energetics, plant design, and economics, Appl. Energy 108 (2013)
45–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.003.
[119] K.-Y. Show, D.-J. Lee, Chapter 5 - algal biomass harvesting, in: A. Pandey, D.-
J. Lee, Y. Chisti, C.R. Soccol (Eds.), Biofuels from Algae, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2014, pp. 85–110, , https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59558-4.00005-X.
[120] R.V. Pearsall, R.L. Connelly, M.E. Fountain, C.S. Hearn, M.D. Werst, R.E. Hebner,
E.F. Kelley, Electrically dewatering microalgae, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul.
18 (2011) 1578–1583, https://doi.org/10.1109/TDEI.2011.6032827.
[121] S.K. Wang, A.R. Stiles, C. Guo, C.Z. Liu, Harvesting microalgae by magnetic se-
paration: a review, Algal Res. 9 (2015) 178–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.
2015.03.005.
[122] M. Cerff, M. Morweiser, R. Dillschneider, A. Michel, K. Menzel, C. Posten,
Harvesting fresh water and marine algae by magnetic separation: screening of
separation parameters and high gradient magnetic filtration, Bioresour. Technol.
118 (2012) 289–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.020.
[123] G. Prochazkova, I. Safarik, T. Branyik, Harvesting microalgae with microwave
synthesized magnetic microparticles, Bioresour. Technol. 130 (2013) 472–477,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.060.
[124] Y.-R. Hu, F. Wang, S.-K. Wang, C.-Z. Liu, C. Guo, Efficient harvesting of marine
microalgae Nannochloropsis maritima using magnetic nanoparticles, Bioresour.
Technol. 138 (2013) 387–390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.04.016.
[125] L. Xu, C. Guo, F. Wang, S. Zheng, C.-Z. Liu, A simple and rapid harvesting method
for microalgae by in situ magnetic separation, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011)
10047–10051.
17
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
[126] S.-K. Wang, A.R. Stiles, C. Guo, C.-Z. Liu, Harvesting microalgae by magnetic se-
paration: a review, Algal Res. 9 (2015) 178–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.
2015.03.005.
[127] A.E. Regazzoni, G.A. Urrutia, M.A. Blesa, A.J.G. Maroto, Some observations on the
composition and morphology of synthetic magnetites obtained by different routes,
J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 43 (1981) 1489–1493, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1902(81)80322-3.
[128] P.Y. Toh, B.W. Ng, C.H. Chong, A.L. Ahmad, J.-W. Yang, C.J. Chieh Derek, J. Lim,
Magnetophoretic separation of microalgae: the role of nanoparticles and polymer
binder in harvesting biofuel, RSC Adv. 4 (2014) 4114–4121, https://doi.org/10.
1039/C3RA46298F.
[129] L.J. Kang, C.D.C. Juinn, S.A. Jalak, T.P. Yi, Y.N.H. Mat, N.B. Wah, A.A. Latif, Rapid
magnetophoretic separation of microalgae, Small 8 (2002) 1683–1692, https://
doi.org/10.1002/smll.201102400.
[130] K. Lee, S.Y. Lee, J.-G. Na, S.G. Jeon, R. Praveenkumar, D.-M. Kim, W.-S. Chang, Y.-
K. Oh, Magnetophoretic harvesting of oleaginous Chlorella sp. by using bio-
compatible chitosan/magnetic nanoparticle composites, Bioresour. Technol. 149
(2013) 575–578, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.074.
[131] J.Y. Seo, K. Lee, S.Y. Lee, S.G. Jeon, J.-G. Na, Y.-K. Oh, S. Bin Park, Effect of
barium ferrite particle size on detachment efficiency in magnetophoretic har-
vesting of oleaginous Chlorella sp, Bioresour. Technol. 152 (2014) 562–566,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.064.
[132] R. Bosma, W.A. Van Spronsen, J. Tramper, R.H. Wijffels, Ultrasound, a new se-
paration technique to harvest microalgae, J. Appl. Phycol. 15 (2003), https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1023807011027.
[133] B.L. Marrone, R.E. Lacey, D.B. Anderson, J. Bonner, J. Coons, T. Dale,
C.M. Downes, S. Fernando, C. Fuller, B. Goodall, J.E. Holladay, K. Kadam, D. Kalb,
W. Liu, J.B. Mott, Z. Nikolov, K.L. Ogden, R.T. Sayre, B.G. Trewyn, J.A. Olivares,
Review of the harvesting and extraction program within the National Alliance for
Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts, Algal Res. 33 (2018) 470–485, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.07.015.
[134] J.S. Martín del Campo, R. Patiño, Harvesting microalgae cultures with super-
absorbent polymers: desulfurization of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii for hydrogen
production, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 110 (2013) 3227–3234, https://doi.org/10.1002/
bit.24989.
[135] O. Giuseppe, S. Piero, M. Antonio, Advances in photobioreactors for intensive
microalgal production: configurations, operating strategies and applications, J.
Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 89 (2014) 178–195, https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.
4218.
[136] M.B. Johnson, Z. Wen, Development of an attached microalgal growth system for
biofuel production, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85 (2010) 525–534.
[137] M. Scholz, T. Hoshino, D. Johnson, M.R. Riley, J. Cuello, Flocculation of wall-
deficient cells of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii mutant cw15 by calcium and me-
thanol, Biomass Bioenergy 35 (2011) 4835–4840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2011.08.020.
[138] M. Mendez, C. Behnke, Y. Poon, P. Lee, Induction of Flocculation in
Photosynthetic Organisms, (2015).
[139] K. Sander, G.S. Murthy, Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 15 (2010) 704–714, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0194-1.
[140] P.M. Foley, E.S. Beach, J.B. Zimmerman, Algae as a source of renewable chemi-
cals: opportunities and challenges, Green Chem. 13 (2011) 1399–1405, https://
doi.org/10.1039/C1GC00015B.
[141] M. Collotta, P. Champagne, W. Mabee, G. Tomasoni, G.B. Leite, L. Busi, M. Alberti,
Comparative LCA of flocculation for the harvesting of microalgae for biofuels
production, Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 756–760, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.
2016.11.146.
[142] M.R. Granados, F.G. Acien, C. Gomez, J.M. Fernandez-Sevilla, E. Molina Grima,
Evaluation of flocculants for the recovery of freshwater microalgae, Bioresour.
Technol. 118 (2012) 102–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.018.
[143] S.J. Lee, S.-B. Kim, J.-E. Kim, G.-S. Kwon, B.-D. Yoon, H.-M. Oh, Effects of har-
vesting method and growth stage on the flocculation of the green alga
Botryococcus braunii, Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 27 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1046/j.
1472-765X.1998.00375.x.
[144] R. Davis, J. Markham, C. Kinchin, N. Grundl, E.C.D. Tan, D. Humbird, Process
Design and Economics for the Production of Algal Biomass: Algal Biomass
Production in Open Pond Systems and Processing Through Dewatering for
Downstream Conversion, (2016), https://doi.org/10.2172/1239893.
[145] A.B. Aragón, R.B. Padilla, J.A.F.R. de Ursinos, Experimental study of the recovery
of algae cultured in effluents from the anaerobic biological treatment of urban
wastewaters, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 6 (1992) 293–302, https://doi.org/10.
1016/0921-3449(92)90053-5.
[146] P. Le-Clech, V. Chen, T.A.G. Fane, Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in
wastewater treatment, J. Memb. Sci. 284 (2006) 17–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.memsci.2006.08.019.
[147] B.L. Marrone, R.E. Lacey, D.B. Anderson, J. Bonner, J. Coons, T. Dale,
C.M. Downes, S. Fernando, C. Fuller, B. Goodall, J.E. Holladay, K. Kadam, D. Kalb,
W. Liu, J.B. Mott, Z. Nikolov, K.L. Ogden, R.T. Sayre, B.G. Trewyn, J.A. Olivares,
Review of the harvesting and extraction program within the National Alliance for
Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts, Algal Res. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
algal.2017.07.015.
[148] J.E. Coons, D.M. Kalb, T. Dale, B.L. Marrone, Getting to low-cost algal biofuels: a
monograph on conventional and cutting-edge harvesting and extraction technol-
ogies, Algal Res. 6 (2014) 250–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.08.005.
[149] S.L. Pahl, A.K. Lee, T. Kalaitzidis, P.J. Ashman, S. Sathe, D.M. Lewis,
M.A. Borowitzka, N.R. Moheimani (Eds.), Harvesting, Thickening and Dewatering
Microalgae Biomass BT - Algae for Biofuels and Energy, Springer, Netherlands,
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
Dordrecht, 2013, pp. 165–185, , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5479-9_10.
[150] G. Singh, S.K. Patidar, Microalgae harvesting techniques: a review, J. Environ.
Manage. 217 (2018) 499–508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.010.
[151] T. Mathimani, N. Mallick, A comprehensive review on harvesting of microalgae for
biodiesel – key challenges and future directions, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91
(2018) 1103–1120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.083.
[152] I. Rawat, R. Ranjith Kumar, T. Mutanda, F. Bux, Biodiesel from microalgae: a
critical evaluation from laboratory to large scale production, Appl. Energy 103
(2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.004.
[153] A.K. Lee, D.M. Lewis, P.J. Ashman, Microbial flocculation, a potentially low-cost
harvesting technique for marine microalgae for the production of biodiesel, J.
Appl. Phycol. 21 (2009) 559–567, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-008-9391-8.
[154] M.Y.A. Mollah, P. Morkovsky, J.A.G. Gomes, M. Kesmez, J. Parga, D.L. Cocke,
Fundamentals, present and future perspectives of electrocoagulation, J. Hazard.
Mater. 114 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.08.009.
[155] X. Zou, Y. Li, K. Xu, H. Wen, Z. Shen, X. Ren, Microalgae harvesting by buoy-bead
flotation process using Bioflocculant as alternative to chemical Flocculant, Algal
Res. 32 (2018) 233–240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.04.010.
[156] G. Kandasamy, S.R.M. Shaleh, Flotation removal of the microalga Nannochloropsis
sp. Using Moringa protein–oil emulsion: a novel green approach, Bioresour.
Technol. 247 (2018) 327–331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.187.
[157] Z. Shen, Y. Li, H. Wen, X. Ren, J. Liu, L. Yang, Investigation on the role of sur-
factants in bubble-algae interaction in flotation harvesting of Chlorella vulgaris,
Sci. Rep. 8 (2018) 3303, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21629-x.
[158] W. Zhou, L. Gao, W. Cheng, L. Chen, J. Wang, H. Wang, W. Zhang, T. Liu, Electro-
flotation of Chlorella sp. assisted with flocculation by chitosan, Algal Res. 18
(2016) 7–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.05.029.
[159] T. Coward, J.G.M. Lee, G.S. Caldwell, Harvesting microalgae by CTAB-aided foam
flotation increases lipid recovery and improves fatty acid methyl ester character-
istics, Biomass Bioenergy 67 (2014) 354–362.
[160] X. Zou, K. Xu, H. Wen, Y. Xue, S. Zhao, W. Xie, Y. Li, A novel method to recover
microalgae by compound buoyant-bead flotation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 211 (2019)
658–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.10.047.
[161] M.A.S. Alkarawi, G.S. Caldwell, J.G.M. Lee, Continuous harvesting of microalgae
biomass using foam flotation, Algal Res. 36 (2018) 125–138, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.algal.2018.10.018.
[162] S. Garg, L. Wang, P.M. Schenk, Flotation separation of marine microalgae from
aqueous medium, Sep. Purif. Technol. 156 (2015) 636–641, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.seppur.2015.10.059.
[163] K. Xu, Y. Li, X. Zou, H. Wen, Z. Shen, X. Ren, Investigating microalgae cell-mi-
crosphere interactions during microalgae harvesting by ballasted dissolved air
flotation through XDLVO theory, Biochem. Eng. J. 137 (2018) 294–304, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.06.013.
[164] F. Wicaksana, A.G. Fane, P. Pongpairoj, R. Field, Microfiltration of algae (Chlorella
sorokiniana): critical flux, fouling and transmission, J. Memb. Sci. 387–388 (2012)
83–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.10.013.
[165] S. Babel, S. Takizawa, H. Ozaki, Factors affecting seasonal variation of membrane
filtration resistance caused by Chlorella algae, Water Res. 36 (2002) 1193–1202,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00333-5.
[166] W. Zhang, W. Zhang, X. Zhang, P. Amendola, Q. Hu, Y. Chen, Characterization of
dissolved organic matters responsible for ultrafiltration membrane fouling in algal
harvesting, Algal Res. 2 (2013) 223–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.
05.002.
[167] F. Zhao, H. Chu, Y. Su, X. Tan, Y. Zhang, L. Yang, X. Zhou, Microalgae harvesting
by an axial vibration membrane: the mechanism of mitigating membrane fouling,
J. Memb. Sci. 508 (2016) 127–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.
007.
[168] A.L. Ahmad, N.H.M. Yasin, C.J.C. Derek, J.K. Lim, Harvesting of microalgal bio-
mass using MF membrane: kinetic model, CDE model and extended DLVO theory,
J. Memb. Sci. 446 (2013) 341–349, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.07.
012.
[169] X. Chen, C. Huang, T. Liu, Harvesting of microalgae Scenedesmus sp. using
polyvinylidene fluoride microfiltration membrane, Desalin. Water Treat. 45
(2012) 177–181, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.692034.
[170] A. Jana, S. Ghosh, S. Majumdar, Energy efficient harvesting of Arthrospira sp.
using ceramic membranes: analyzing the effect of membrane pore size and in-
corporation of flocculant as fouling control strategy, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.
93 (2018) 1085–1096, https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5466.
[171] D. Kim, M. Kwak, K. Kim, Y.K. Chang, Turbulent jet-assisted microfiltration for
energy efficient harvesting of microalgae, J. Memb. Sci. 575 (2019) 170–178,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.12.069.
[172] Y. Zhang, X. Li, R. Xu, C. Ma, X. Wang, Q. Fu, Algal fouling control in a hollow
fiber module during ultrafiltration by angular vibrations, J. Memb. Sci. 569 (2019)
200–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.10.029.
[173] I. de Godos, H.O. Guzman, R. Soto, P.A. García-Encina, E. Becares, R. Muñoz,
V.A. Vargas, Coagulation/flocculation-based removal of algal–bacterial biomass
from piggery wastewater treatment, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 923–927,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.036.
[174] L. Chen, C. Wang, W. Wang, J. Wei, Optimal conditions of different flocculation
methods for harvesting Scenedesmus sp. Cultivated in an open-pond system,
Bioresour. Technol. 133 (2013) 9–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.
01.071.
[175] S. Sirin, R. Trobajo, C. Ibanez, J. Salvadó, Harvesting the microalgae
Phaeodactylum tricornutum with polyaluminum chloride, aluminium sulphate,
chitosan and alkalinity-induced flocculation, J. Appl. Phycol. 24 (2012)
1067–1080, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-011-9736-6.
18
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
[176] V.M. Rwehumbiza, R. Harrison, L. Thomsen, Alum-induced flocculation of pre-
concentrated Nannochloropsis salina: residual aluminium in the biomass, FAMEs
and its effects on microalgae growth upon media recycling, Chem. Eng. J. 200–202
(2012) 168–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.06.008.
[177] S.K. Gupta, N.M. Kumar, A. Guldhe, F.A. Ansari, I. Rawat, M. Nasr, F. Bux,
Wastewater to biofuels: comprehensive evaluation ofvarious flocculants on bio-
chemical composition and yield of microalgae, Ecol. Eng. 117 (2018) 62–68,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.04.005.
[178] C.O. Letelier-Gordo, S.L. Holdt, D. De Francisci, D.B. Karakashev, I. Angelidaki,
Effective harvesting of the microalgae Chlorella protothecoides via bioflocculation
with cationic starch, Bioresour. Technol. 167 (2014) 214–218, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2014.06.014.
[179] M.S. Farid, A. Shariati, A. Badakhshan, B. Anvaripour, Using nano-chitosan for
harvesting microalga Nannochloropsis sp, Bioresour. Technol. 131 (2013)
555–559, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.058.
[180] L. Van Haver, S. Nayar, Polyelectrolyte flocculants in harvesting microalgal bio-
mass for food and feed applications, Algal Res. 24 (2017) 167–180, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.03.022.
[181] F. Bleeke, M. Milas, D. Winckelmann, G. Klöck, Optimization of freshwater mi-
croalgal biomass harvest using polymeric flocculants, Int. Aquat. Res. 7 (2015)
235–244, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40071-015-0108-8.
[182] C.M.L.L. Teixeira, F.V. Kirsten, P.C.N. Teixeira, Evaluation of Moringa oleifera
seed flour as a flocculating agent for potential biodiesel producer microalgae, J.
Appl. Phycol. 24 (2012) 557–563, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-011-9773-1.
[183] P. Lopez-Exposito, C. Campano, T.G.M. van de Ven, C. Negro, A. Blanco,
Microalgae harvesting with the novel flocculant hairy cationic nanocrystalline
cellulose, Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 178 (2019) 329–336, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.colsurfb.2019.03.018.
[184] W. Zhou, M. Min, B. Hu, X. Ma, Y. Liu, Q. Wang, J. Shi, P. Chen, R. Ruan,
Filamentous fungi assisted bio-flocculation: a novel alternative technique for
harvesting heterotrophic and autotrophic microalgal cells, Sep. Purif. Technol.
107 (2013) 158–165.
[185] T.D.P. Nguyen, T.V.A. Le, P.L. Show, T.T. Nguyen, M.H. Tran, T.N.T. Tran,
S.Y. Lee, Bioflocculation formation of microalgae-bacteria in enhancing micro-
algae harvesting and nutrient removal from wastewater effluent, Bioresour.
Technol. 272 (2019) 34–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.146.
[186] T. Ndikubwimana, X. Zeng, T. Murwanashyaka, E. Manirafasha, N. He, W. Shao,
Y. Lu, Harvesting of freshwater microalgae with microbial bioflocculant: a pilot-
scale study, Biotechnol. Biofuels 9 (2016) 47, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-
016-0458-5.
[187] E. Díaz-Santos, M. Vila, M. de la Vega, R. León, J. Vigara, Study of bioflocculation
induced by Saccharomyces bayanus var. uvarum and flocculating protein factors
in microalgae, Algal Res. 8 (2015) 23–29.
[188] M. Agbakpe, S. Ge, W. Zhang, X. Zhang, P. Kobylarz, Algae harvesting for biofuel
production: influences of UV irradiation and polyethylenimine (PEI) coating on
bacterial biocoagulation, Bioresour. Technol. 166 (2014) 266–272, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.060.
[189] J. Chen, L. Leng, C. Ye, Q. Lu, M. Addy, J. Wang, J. Liu, P. Chen, R. Ruan, W. Zhou,
A comparative study between fungal pellet- and spore-assisted microalgae har-
vesting methods for algae bioflocculation, Bioresour. Technol. 259 (2018)
181–190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.040.
[190] S. Luo, X. Wu, H. Jiang, M. Yu, Y. Liu, A. Min, W. Li, R. Ruan, Edible fungi-assisted
harvesting system for efficient microalgae bio-flocculation, Bioresour. Technol.
282 (2019) 325–330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.033.
[191] F. Bleeke, G. Quante, D. Winckelmann, G. Klöck, Effect of voltage and electrode
material on electroflocculation of Scenedesmus acuminatus, Bioresour. Bioprocess.
2 (2015) 36, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-015-0064-6.
[192] N. Fayad, T. Yehya, F. Audonnet, C. Vial, Harvesting of microalgae Chlorella
vulgaris using electro-coagulation-flocculation in the batch mode, Algal Res. 25
(2017) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.03.015.
[193] A. Rahmani, D. Zerrouki, L. Djafer, A. Ayral, Hydrogen recovery from the pho-
tovoltaic electroflocculation-flotation process for harvesting Chlorella pyrenoidosa
microalgae, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 19591–19596, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.123.
[194] E. Valero, X. Álvarez, Á. Cancela, Á. Sánchez, Harvesting green algae from eu-
trophic reservoir by electroflocculation and post-use for biodiesel production,
Bioresour. Technol. 187 (2015) 255–262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2015.03.138.
[195] C.T. Matos, M. Santos, B.P. Nobre, L. Gouveia, Nannochloropsis sp. biomass re-
covery by Electro-Coagulation for biodiesel and pigment production, Bioresour.
Technol. 134 (2013) 219–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.034.
[196] R. Misra, A. Guldhe, P. Singh, I. Rawat, T.A. Stenström, F. Bux, Evaluation of
operating conditions for sustainable harvesting of microalgal biomass applying
electrochemical method using non sacrificial electrodes, Bioresour. Technol. 176
(2015) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.014.
[197] F. Baierle, D.K. John, M.P. Souza, T.R. Bjerk, M.S.A. Moraes, M. Hoeltz,
A.L.B. Rohlfes, M.E. Camargo, V.A. Corbellini, R.C.S. Schneider, Biomass from
microalgae separation by electroflotation with iron and aluminum spiral elec-
trodes, Chem. Eng. J. 267 (2015) 274–281, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.
01.031.
[198] A. Landels, T.A. Beacham, C.T. Evans, G. Carnovale, S. Raikova, I.S. Cole,
P. Goddard, C. Chuck, M.J. Allen, Improving electrocoagulation floatation for
harvesting microalgae, Algal Res. 39 (2019) 101446, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
algal.2019.101446.
[199] E. Boli, M. Savvidou, D. Logothetis, V. Louli, G. Pappa, E. Voutsas, F. Kolisis,
K. Magoulas, Magnetic harvesting of marine algae Nannochloropsis oceanica, Sep.
M. Roy and K. Mohanty
Sci. Technol. 0 (2017) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2017.1296463.
[200] G. Prochazkova, N. Podolova, I. Safarik, V. Zachleder, T. Branyik, Physicochemical
approach to freshwater microalgae harvesting with magnetic particles, Colloids
Surf. B Biointerfaces 112 (2013) 213–218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.
2013.07.053.
[201] J.Y. Seo, K. Lee, R. Praveenkumar, B. Kim, S.Y. Lee, Y.-K. Oh, S. Bin Park, Tri-
functionality of Fe3O4-embedded carbon microparticles in microalgae harvesting,
Chem. Eng. J. 280 (2015) 206–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.122.
[202] K. Lee, J.-G. Na, J.Y. Seo, T.S. Shim, B. Kim, R. Praveenkumar, J.-Y. Park, Y.-K. Oh,
S.G. Jeon, Magnetic-nanoflocculant-assisted water–nonpolar solvent interface
sieve for microalgae harvesting, ACS appl. Mater. Interfaces 7 (2015)
18336–18343, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b04098.
[203] J.Y. Seo, R. Praveenkumar, B. Kim, J.-C. Seo, J.-Y. Park, J.-G. Na, S.G. Jeon, S. Bin
Park, K. Lee, Y.-K. Oh, Downstream integration of microalgae harvesting and cell
disruption by means of cationic surfactant-decorated Fe3O4 nanoparticles, Green
Chem. 18 (2016) 3981–3989, https://doi.org/10.1039/C6GC00904B.
[204] K. Lee, S.Y. Lee, R. Praveenkumar, B. Kim, J.Y. Seo, S.G. Jeon, J.-G. Na, J.-Y. Park,
D.-M. Kim, Y.-K. Oh, Repeated use of stable magnetic flocculant for efficient
harvest of oleaginous Chlorella sp, Bioresour. Technol. 167 (2014) 284–290,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.06.055.
[205] N. Deconinck, K. Muylaert, W. Ivens, D. Vandamme, Innovative harvesting
19
Algal Research 44 (2019) 101683
processes for microalgae biomass production: a perspective from patent literature,
Algal Res. 31 (2018) 469–477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.01.016.
[206] B. Barrut, J.-P. Blancheton, M. Callier, J.-Y. Champagne, A. Grasmick, Foam
fractionation efficiency of a vacuum airlift—application to particulate matter re-
moval in recirculating systems, Aquac. Eng. 54 (2013) 16–21, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aquaeng.2012.10.003.
[207] M.R. Bilad, G. Mezohegyi, P. Declerck, I.F.J. Vankelecom, Novel magnetically
induced membrane vibration (MMV) for fouling control in membrane bioreactors,
Water Res. 46 (2012) 63–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.026.
[208] N.K. Sahoo, S.K. Gupta, I. Rawat, F.A. Ansari, P. Singh, S.N. Naik, F. Bux,
Sustainable dewatering and drying of self-flocculating microalgae and study of
cake properties, J. Clean. Prod. 159 (2017) 248–256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.05.015.
[209] R. Misra, A. Guldhe, P. Singh, I. Rawat, F. Bux, Electrochemical harvesting process
for microalgae by using nonsacrificial carbon electrode: a sustainable approach for
biodiesel production, Chem. Eng. J. 255 (2014) 327–333, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cej.2014.06.010.
[210] J. Kim, B.-G. Ryu, B.-K. Kim, J.-I. Han, J.-W. Yang, Continuous microalgae re-
covery using electrolysis with polarity exchange, Bioresour. Technol. 111 (2012)
268–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.104.