Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01669-7

REVIEW

Sargassum Invasion in the Caribbean: An Opportunity for Coastal

Communities to Produce Bioenergy Based on Biorefinery—An
Overview
Catia Giovanna Lopresto1 · Rosy Paletta1 · Pierpaolo Filippelli2 · Luana Galluccio2 · Cinthia de la Rosa3 ·
Eurípides Amaro3 · Ulises Jáuregui‑Haza4 · J. Atilio de Frias3,5

Received: 7 June 2021 / Accepted: 15 December 2021 / Published online: 13 January 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
Purpose Sargassum spp. is one of the most abundant brown macroalgae. Pelagic species of this genus are habitat to numer-
ous marine species, however, its recent blooms in the Caribbean have posed a serious problem for local communities.
Methods This comprehensive review focuses on pelagic Sargassum, its chemical composition and its importance for marine
ecosystems in contrast with its negative economic, ecological and health impacts during massive beaching events.
Results The valorization of macroalgae is widely discussed with focus on biogas production from Sargassum via anaerobic
digestion as well as the effect of pretreatment and biosorption of heavy metals on biogas yields.
Conclusion Local communities can use macroalgae as raw materials and manage processes to obtain biofuels by essential,
simple, flexible, and cheap tools for self-supply. In this review we discuss on Sargassum valorization from an energy stand-
point to compensate coastal communities affected by these beaching events to transform a problem into a solution.
Graphical Abstract

Keywords Sargassum · Caribbean · Anaerobic digestion · Valorization · Beaching events

Catia Giovanna Lopresto and RosyPaletta have contributed equally

to this manuscript as first authors. Statement of Novelty

* J. Atilio de Frias This review deals with the Sargassum blooms in Caribbean
atilio.defrias@ufhec.edu.do from a positive perspective to produce energy from free
1
Department of Computer Engineering, Modeling,
and abundant biomass. Anaerobic digestion is an attrac-
Electronics and Systems (DIMES), University of Calabria, tive waste treatment practice in which both pollution con-
Rende, Italy trol and energy recovery can be achieved. The anaerobic
2
Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management digestion, described in previews studies, was accurately
Engineering (DIMEG), University of Calabria, Rende, Italy reported together with the evaluation of the Biochemical
3
Universidad Federico Henriquez y Carvajal (UFHEC), Methane Potential (BMP). In addition, adequate pretreat-
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic ments and co-digestions of Sargassum with other biomasses
4
Instituto Tecnologico de Santo Domingo (INTEC), were extensively reported to enhance methane yields and
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic make the process more cost-effective, as well as the addi-
5
Av. Máximo Gómez esq. César Nicolás Penson, tion of nanoparticles. Consequently, this review presents an
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2770
updated and extensive overview of Sargassum exploitation
by anaerobic digestion, with a focus on persisting drawbacks
and future challenges.
Introduction
Floating Sargassum: General Information
Marine macroalgae or seaweeds are multicellular plants with
a very complex diversity and composition. Based mainly
on their photosynthetic pigments and morphology, they are
classified into three main groups: brown algae (Phaeophy-
ceae), red algae (Rhodophyceae) and green algae (Cholo-
phyta) [1].
Brown algae are the most complex algal organisms, with
a unique mechanism of photon absorption during photosyn-
thesis [1]. The predominant brown color is a result of carot-
enoids (i.e., fucoxanthin) [2]. Among the 2000 species of
brown alga, Sargassum or ‘Sargasso’, as is known colloqui-
ally, is the most abundant [3]. The name originated from its
presence in the Sargasso Sea, first reported by Christopher
Columbus in the fifteenth century [4, 5].
Floating Sargassum in open sea is an essential habitat for
several marine species, providing food, refuge, and breeding
grounds for fishes, sea turtles, marine birds, crabs, shrimp,
and more [6]. Some animals, like the Sargassum fish or frog-
fish, live their whole lives only in this habitat. A synergistic
relationship between Sargassum and fishes contribute to
nutrient supply and growth in nutrient-poor waters of the
Sargasso Sea [7].
Some species of Sargassum also serve as feedstock for
value-added products by the agro-food, textile, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical industries, especially in Asian countries [2,
6, 8, 9]. In addition, high-value functional compounds can be
extracted from Sargassum species, such as polyunsaturated
fatty acids [10], sulfated polysaccharides and polyphenols
with antioxidant, antiproliferative and other therapeutic
activities [11–15]. A very recent application concerns the
formulation of alginate-based edible film from Sargassum
fluitans incorporated with silver nanoparticles synthesized
by a green method [16].
Nevertheless, excessive amounts of Sargassum on
beaches in populated areas can cause problems. Even though
the cause of excessive blooming in recent years has not been
defined, it may be a result of large-scale atmospheric and
oceanic forcing, related to increasing water temperatures,
climate change and weather fluctuations [6, 17, 18]. Moreo-
ver, human modification of biogeochemical cycles, result-
ing in ocean acidification and eutrophication, due to high
amounts of nutrients from rivers, agricultural fertilizers and
wastewater from cities, could contribute to the proliferation
of Sargassum in recent years [19–21].
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
Unprecedented Sargassum Influx in the Gulf
of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico and the Sargasso Sea have the largest
concentration of pelagic Sargassum (S. natans and S. fluitans
[22]) in the world [23]. The seasonal blooms of Sargassum
are investigated in the tropical and subtropical North Atlan-
tic [24] with spatial and temporal distributions. Floating Sar-
gassum in the western Gulf of Mexico was observed from
space in 2005 for the first time [25]. Sargassum moves from
the Sargasso Sea through the Caribbean Sea and into the
Gulf of Mexico, promoted by the Azores high-pressure sys-
tem [26]. Satellite images from the European Space Agency
show a seasonal cycle in North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
with peak blooms between March and September [5].
Until 2010, Sargassum originated in the northwest Gulf
of Mexico in the spring of each year, and then it moved to
the Atlantic Ocean, ending in the northeastern Bahamas in
February of the following year [23, 27]. Nevertheless, an
unprecedented floating Sargassum outbreak formed lines
stretching from West Africa to the Caribbean Sea in 2011
[28, 29]. Satellite images suggested a new Sargassum ori-
gin region [21], further south than the previous one. This
new area of algal masses was named the Great Atlantic
‘Sargasso’ Belt and consisted of 8850 km in the Atlantic
Ocean corresponding to 20 million metric tons [5]. Sargas-
sum blooms arise in an area identified as the North Equa-
torial Recirculation Region (NERR) [30, 31], north of the
mouth of the Amazon along the northern coast of Brazil in
the western Equatorial Atlantic [32–34]. Such distributions
had not been seen previously in the tropical Atlantic and
could be explained by nutrient supply in that region, chang-
ing weather conditions and anomalous winds [35]. These
extraordinary beaching events peak during the spring and
summer months and have worsened in recent years.
The accumulation of Sargassum in the Caribbean Sea
and Central Atlantic Ocean in the years 2015, 2018, 2019
2020 and 2021, is shown in Fig. 1. This figure is based on
data extracted from the monthly bulletins published by the
University of South Florida Optical Oceanography Labora-
tory [36] and data from literature [5, 35].
Since the first significant Sargassum bloom in 2011,
the years 2015 and 2018 experienced the largest Sargas-
sum buildup ever recorded during the peak months between
March and September [5, 35]. The large presence of Sargas-
sum in 2015 may be a result of higher nutrient availability in
spring and early summer from the central east Atlantic and
Amazon River, maybe caused by increased deforestation and
fertilizer use in Brazil, and increased water-column nitro-
gen with time and for the highest water temperature in this
period of the year [5]. In the next few years, the continuous
nutrient flow, as well as climate change, are consistent with
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
Mean Sargassum biomass per month (million 25
20
15
metric tons)
10
5
0
March April May
2015 2018
Fig. 1  Sargassum spp. accumulation in the Caribbean Sea and Cen-
tral Atlantic Ocean (5° S–25 ºN, 89° W–15° E) during the peak
bloom months between March and September in the years 2015,
2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. Data were not available for May 2021 (data
from [5, 35, 36])
the peak accumulation recorded for the region in the month
of June 2018, at 20.4 million metric tons [37]. The Sargas-
sum accumulation in 2019, 2020 and 2021 (Figs. 1 and 2)
seems to support the observations by Wang et al. [5], and
Sargassum blooms and beaching events may be a recurring
phenomenon over time.
Floating algae density, in terms of percentage of area cov-
ered [38], was daily monitored during 2020 [36], using the
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
[18, 39]. Recently, the surface area covered by floating Sar-
gassum in the Northern Mexican Caribbean during Sargas-
sum influx in September 2018 was evaluated through the
analysis of multispectral images and supervised by machine
learning approach [40]. Density is calculated as a mean of
the past 7 days, and based on the corresponding Alterna-
tive Floating Algae Index (AFAI) images using the method
described by Wang and Hu [18]. In Fig. 2 we summarized
the monthly monitoring of the floating algae density in the
Eastern Caribbean. In 2020 blooms occurred during the
spring and summer months, from April to September.
Adverse Impacts of Massive Sargassum Influx
Recent studies have shown that Sargassum invasions affect
coast and beach ecosystems [41, 42]. A very recent work
highlighted the adverse ecological impacts of Sargassum
influx, in terms of coastal impacts, fauna, ecosystems and
biodiversity [43]. Sargassum decomposition creates Golden
or Brown Tides, turning water brown and blocking sunlight
penetration with consequent anoxic conditions, loss of nutri-
ents and production of toxic gases [42, 44]. Consequently,
coral species, seagrass, benthic communities and fauna spe-
cies die in greater proportions than previous times, due to
low concentration of dissolved oxygen and high values of
2771
ammonium, phosphorus and sulfide [45–47]. The coastal
accumulation can form a one-meter high “wall”, precluding
access to nesting sites for turtles and creating a contami-
nated incubation environment [48]. Moreover, the accumu-
lated Sargassum may also cause beach erosion, depending
on local conditions [20]. Finally, Sargassum breaks down
rapidly on beaches with emission of harmful gases [17, 45]
causing respiratory problems, particularly for asthmatics
[49].
Massive Sargassum beaching events are recent phe-
June July August September nomena for many residents in the Caribbean, who feel the
2019 2020 2021
socio-economic impacts of such influx [43]. The removal of
Sargassum from beaches or the prevention of it reaching the
beaches can be very expensive, with a cost of around US$
5 million on the Mexican Gulf of Mexico and an estimated
cost across the Caribbean of US$ 120 million [50]. The Car-
ibbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism has even estimated
the clean-up costs of Sargassum for the Caribbean beaches
in 2018 at $ 210 million [21]. Caribbean communities have
not yet found sustainable solutions to remove the excess of
Sargassum from coasts to preserve the ecosystems and the
tourism industry. Indeed, Sargassum blooms can last for
weeks at a time and negatively affect tourism-based econo-
mies of the coastal regions [6]. The current remediation to
minimize its impact consists in the manual or mechanical
collection of Sargassum, preferably within 72 h of arrival
[20], followed by landfills disposal [42]. Nonetheless, inad-
equate disposal of Sargassum contaminate aquifers with
nutrients, salt, metals and other contaminants [20]. Recently,
some authors highlighted the importance to develop suc-
cessful strategies by an interdisciplinary approach from
exploration to management by including detection, collec-
tion, stabilization, and experimentation [43]. Nevertheless,
no official information are available to identify the specific
role of local communities in the different phases.
The cause, effects, and potential solutions of the outbreak
are topics of international debate [51]. The Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Natural Resources of Dominican Republic esti-
mated that 49 national beaches in the country were impacted
by the arrival of Sargassum in 2018, with an accumulation of
2,424,800 cubic meters [52]. Consequently, the approach of
sustainable and scientific solutions to overcome the impact
of Sargassum on ecosystems, fishery and tourism is essential
for the Dominican reality. This unprecedented invasion may
deliver several economic opportunities in the energy sector
[53, 54].
Sargassum as a Resource for a Bioenergy Strategy
Bioenergy from renewable biomass resources is an impor-
tant alternative to traditional fossil-derived energy, con-
tributing to the final energy demand for different needs,
especially cooking and heating. Identifying the reasonable
13
2772 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793

Fig. 2  Monthly monitoring of floating algal density in the Eastern Caribbean, an area bounded within these coordinates: 23° N 10° N 60° W and
75° W [36]. The highlighted areas are Sargassum blooms

cultivation locations, appropriate bioenergy crop types, Nevertheless, first- and second-generation bioenergy
and optimal management practices can be beneficial to from agricultural or dedicated crops without comple-
environment and sustainable development of bioenergy. mentary measures showed evident food/feed vs. fuel

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
competition and environmental impacts in terms of water
issues, greenhouse gas emissions (due to deforestation, as
an example), use of fertilizers, soil organic carbon, soil
erosion and biodiversity [55–58]. Even the conversion of
marginal low-productive lands [59] and semi-arid or arid
areas [60] is not sustainable on a large scale, as well as
the exploitation of perennial energy crops on degraded
soils suffers of lack of sufficient information [61]. The
bioenergy production from microalgae has been described
as a promising strategy during last decades [62, 63], but,
also in this case, the economic feasibility on commercial
scale and the environmental sustainability are still far
from being reached [64]. Despite many challenges and
critical bottlenecks, bioenergy can contribute to energy
security in countries and support them in meeting their
national goal in terms of poverty reduction, improved
health and wellbeing and climate action. For this reason,
bioenergy-based strategies and encouraging policies have
been introduced from many countries, to achieve multiple
aims: mitigation of climate change on a global scale [65];
making people independent in biofuel production and tak-
ing advantages of wastes destined to expensive disposal
on a local level [66].
Aims and Objectives
This review paper provides a comprehensive updated
overview of the morphological characteristics of Sargas-
sum, its chemical composition, with a focus on produc-
tion of biogas by anaerobic digestion. Indeed, Sargassum
is a renewable, abundant biodegradable biomass, and a
potential feedstock for energy production. Thus, the aim
of this work is to disclose recent advances in the valoriza-
tion efforts of the massive Sargassum influx, based on the
pretreatment of feedstocks and the production of biogas to
meet local energy demands. Small island developing states
in the Caribbean face serious challenges relating to waste
management, sewage treatment, and energy sustainability,
but inefficient and poorly planned delivery of these key ser-
vices has a negative impact on the quality of people’s lives
and the environment. Action across the public and private
sector is needed to address these issues in a cost-effective,
controlled and sustainable manner [67]. Small-scale plants
have many social, economic and environmental advantages
and significantly contribute to renewable energy production
and local development [66]. Communities can use/reuse
local raw materials and manage independently processes
to obtain biofuels by essential, simple, flexible and cheap
tools for self-supply.
Therefore, the creation of a circular economy could miti-
gate damage to the environment and coastal communities.
2773
Characteristics of Sargassum
Described for the first time 200 years ago [8], Sargassum
is a genus of brown macroalgae. It belongs to the family
Sargassaceae, order Fucales, class Phaeophyceae, subclass
Cyclosporeae, phylum Heterokontophyta [2]. It has a typical
brown color due to the presence of xanthophylls, a class of
oxygen-containing carotenoids. The main pigment in Sar-
gassum is fucoxanthin.
Sargassum is morphologically one of the most complex
phaeophycea [8]. It is composed of many leafy appendages,
branches, and round, berry-like gas-filled structures called
pneumatocysts. Pneumatocysts add buoyancy to the plant
structure and allow it to float on the water surface. The larg-
est members can reach several meters in length. The Sargas-
sum thallus, shape of the leaves, basis of the leaves, pedicel,
leaves margin, midrib and apex vary from species to species
[2].
About 150 species are distributed worldwide throughout
temperate and tropical seas [12]. Pelagic species of Sargas-
sum were the main component ranging from 78.1 to 99.6%
of the total beach-cast fresh biomass in the north coast of
the Mexican Caribbean [40]. Thus, the most common spe-
cies in the Caribbean Sea are the free-floating Sargassum
fluitans and Sargassum natans [5, 6, 30, 68]. These are the
only two holopelagic Sargassum species that spend their
whole life cycle in the water surface [69]. Each species has
distinct morphological forms. In particular, scientists identi-
fied two morphological forms of S. fluitans (III, X) and four
forms of S. natans (I, II, VIII, IX) [28]. Both species are
characterized by several blades, highly branched thalli, and
pneumatocysts, creating a floating biomass in the ocean sur-
face [7]. They reproduce asexually by fragmentation of thal-
lus. Light, nutrients and warm temperatures promote their
growth and oceans are their ideal habitat. Photosynthesis
occurs when Sargassum is on the water surface, and when
this alga decompose on shores, its color become dark brown
and toxic gases are emitted [70].
Chemical Composition of Sargassum
The chemical composition of Sargassum is very complex
and varies from one species to another, in addition to the
spatial and temporal variations among the same species.
This phenomenon is probably a result of different algae
growth across seasons [9]. The spatial and temporal vari-
ations in the chemical composition of Sargassum, need to
be understood in order to develop preservation techniques
during Sargassum bloom and ensure an eventual consistent
supply of value-added products [6].
13
2774
The most abundant components are carbohydrates and
ash, while the content of lipids and fibers is low [50, 71].
Moisture content is generally high, ranging from 70 to 90%,
whereas ash content (dry basis) ranges from 10 to 76%. The
main disadvantages associated with such high moisture val-
ues are the use of limited organic loading rates of the digest-
ers, and the short period of biomass storage [72].
Sargassum has a high capacity to absorb metals and other
elements, included toxic metals that may leach into ground-
water. These metals have been detected in samples of S. flui-
tans and S. natans on Mexican and Dominican shores: Al,
As, Ca, Cl, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, Pb, Rb, S, Si, Sr, Th,
U, V, Zn. Arsenic concentration ranges from 24 to 172 ppm
[73–75] and should be specially monitored for its possible
toxic effects above certain limits.
Bioactive compounds, such as flavonoids, saponins, tan-
nins, phenolics, alkaloids, terpenoids, and cardiac gluco-
sides, were also detected [76].
Diversity in chemical composition of red, green and
brown macroalgae was recently studied [77]. The pro-
tein, lipid, carbohydrate, and ash content were reported
in the ranges of 5.8–14.1%, 0.6–2.7%, 13.4–46.1%, and
24.6–76.4%, respectively.
Other authors recently reported a compositional analysis
of mixed Sargassum and the individual species S. natans
VIII, S. natans I, and S. fluitans collected in Turks and Cai-
cos in 2019 [50]. All samples showed high moisture con-
tent (82–87%) and ash content (34–47% dw). Ash was rich
in sodium chloride and salt concentration was 2.6–2.9%
weight. Heavy metals, phenols, sulfur, carbon, proteins, fib-
ers, and lipids were also analyzed [50]. The same species,
collected in the north coast of the Mexican Caribbean dur-
ing the Sargassum influx in September 2018, were recently
characterized. Chemical composition resulted to be spatially
homogeneous for most of the components analyzed, and
scarce differences were observed only for some inorganic
components such as ash, elemental carbon and metal content
[40].
In addition, the proximate and elemental composition,
as well as physico-chemical characteristics of pelagic Sar-
gassum collected from waters in Barbados in 2018, were
analyzed [75]. Its content of micronutrients, macronutrients
and trace elements was also determined.
Table 1 summarizes the chemical composition of pelagic
Sargassum biomass according to different studies.
The chemical composition of macroalgae is very impor-
tant and influences the anaerobic digestion to produce biogas
when macroalgae are used a substrate. The concentration
of carbon and nitrogen is critical, because the carbon-to-
nitrogen (C/N) ratio strongly affects the AD process. When
C/N is very high, nitrogen consumption happens quickly and
biogas production decreases [80]. On the contrary, a low
C/N ratio cause the release and accumulation of nitrogen in
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
the form of ammonium ion, whose high level increases the
pH in the digester and is toxic for methanogens bacteria [72].
To attain a stable digestion process, the optimal C:N ratio of
substrate is suggested in the range of 20–30 [72]. It is evi-
dent that C/N of pelagic Sargassum varies with season and
harvest site, ranging from 7 to 14 in China to around 22–27
in the Caribbean. Due to its oceanic growth conditions, mac-
roalgae contain high level of salts with a negative effect on
biogas production [6]. Macronutrients (Na, Mg, Al, P, K and
Ca) are essential for anaerobic growth, metabolic activity
and biodigester stability [75], but high salt level cause bacte-
rial cells to dehydrate due to osmotic pressure, slow down
the growth and can cause severe inhibition or toxicity [83].
In addition, high Na content influences bacterial archaeal
communities. Indeed, a sodium concentration of 4.42 g L ­ −1
promoted the growth of Paludibacter and Fibrobacter while
a sodium concentration of 20.15 g L ­ −1 inhibited the aceto-
clastic methanogen growth in the anaerobic digestion [81].
Moreover, microorganisms require traces of microelements
(Fe, Ni, Zn, Cu) for their growth and methane production,
but the accumulation of As, Cd, Cr, Hg and Pb is toxic, as
well as the presence of carbamates [80]. Pelagic Sargassum
can contain a large amount of heavy metals; Fe > Mn > Zn
> As > Ni > V > Cu > Cr > Co > Hg > Cd > Pb, which
have a negative impact on anaerobic digestion after their
release from the feedstock [75]. The toxic effect of heavy
metals is due to disruption of enzyme function and structure
by binding of the metals with thiol and other groups on pro-
tein molecules or by replacing naturally occurring metals in
enzyme prosthetic groups [83].
With regard to the proximate composition, insoluble
fibres are recalcitrant to anaerobic digestion and polyphenols
are inhibitors for anaerobic digestion [84]. The theoretical
yields of methane from lipids, proteins and carbohydrates
are 1.014, 0.851, and 0.415 ­LCH4 ­g−1 VS (Volatile Solids),
respectively [72]. Therefore, lipids give the highest theoreti-
cal yield, but their level in Sargassum is very low.
Use of Sargassum as a Source of Energy
The growing accumulation of Sargassum on Atlantic coast-
lines has raised awareness in the scientific community about
the potential sustainable use of this macroalga as a source
of energy and value-added products, to restore beach shores
and promote the growth of the tourism and fishing sectors
[6]. Sargassum may be a more sustainable energy source
than terrestrial crops because it does not need land for their
growth [85], and biofuel production is one of the most
researched applications [86].
Anaerobic digestion (AD) consists of the anoxic degrada-
tion of organic matter, a key biological process for convert-
ing biomass into energy and for the valorization of waste as
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
feedstock. The main product of AD is biogas (60% meth-
ane), which can be used as biofuel or as a thermal energy
source [87]. The Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) is
the optimal amount of methane that an organic matrix can
produce via AD. Different pretreatment methods for bio-
mass disruption, such as mechanical, thermal, enzymatic,
and thermo-chemical treatment, have been shown to success-
fully improve biomethane recovery. Additionally, co-diges-
tion trials of seaweeds mixed with other wastes improved the
overall quality of biomass conversion.
Pretreatments of Macroalgae
A key aspect in the optimization of AD performance from
macroalgae is the pretreatment. This process involves the
physical, biological, chemical or physicochemical decon-
struction of the cell wall matrix to remove or alter the
structures of hemicellulose and lignin (if present), and to
preserve the cellulose fraction [88, 89]. This facilitates the
hydrolysis of cellulose to glucose. Moreover, the methano-
genic potential of brown algae depends on the breakdown
of carbohydrate chains, with alginate being the most abun-
dant carbohydrate [90]. Macroalgae have little or no lignin,
therefore they are less recalcitrant than other lignocellulosic
biomasses. Nonetheless, brown seaweeds are more recalci-
trant to digestion compared to red and green seaweeds [91].
A useful classification of seaweed pretreatment was reported
in literature [86, 92].
Before pretreatment, macroalgae should be washed
and dried. Even though washing removes all inert materi-
als (e.g. stones, sand, salts) and frees the organic matrix,
increased biogas yields downstream depend on the pretreat-
ment process [93]. After the washing step, moderate dry-
ing increases sample stability, decreases processing volume
and decreases moisture content. However, excessive drying
of the organic matrix reduces the surface area available for
effective enzymatic hydrolysis prior to biogas production
[94]. Previous studies have reported that excessive drying
of biomass, before or after pretreatment, causes a reduc-
tion of its pores and irreversible collapse, which lowers
the amount of glucose that can be released by enzymatic
hydrolysis [95].
Physical Pretreatments
Mechanical pretreatments reduce the size of biomass par-
ticles down to 0.2–2 mm to decrease cellulose crystallin-
ity [94], increase the reaction surface to volume ratio and
increase accessibility to complex sugars. Despite the effec-
tiveness of physical pretreatments, the practicability of these
methods is limited because energy consumption can be high
[89].
2775
Physicochemical Pretreatments
Physicochemical pretreatments combine physical and chemi-
cal methods by treating the biomass with or without a chemi-
cal under high temperature and pressure. Some techniques
include a rapid decompression step (e.g. steam explosion,
ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX), C ­ O2 explosion, thermo-
chemical treatments, hydrothermolysis, supercritical flu-
ids) [86, 89]. These pretreatments are effective for biomass
decrystallization and for increasing the surface area [89, 96].
The AFEX method is like steam explosion, with the excep-
tion that biomass is exposed to liquid ammonia for a period
prior to decompression. As opposed to steam explosion, the
ammonia pretreatment has the advantage of producing no
fermentation inhibitors and eliminating the need of a water
wash [97]. On the other hand, hydrothermal pretreatment
is considered an eco-friendly technology compatible for
Sargassum. It enhances the bioavailability of organics for
digestion with the advantage that it does not need prelimi-
nary drying of algae [92, 98]. Additionally, it mitigates the
presence of hydrogen sulfur in biogas [99] and enhances the
properties of the digestate, yielding high-quality bio-ferti-
liser or soil conditioner with agricultural application [75].
Other physicochemical pretreatments include autohy-
drolysis, liquid hot water and autoclaving, which are effec-
tive at breaking the fiber structures of biomass to isolate its
fundamental sugar units which can be converted into biogas
[94, 100].
Even though high temperatures promote biomass solubili-
zation and extraction, one disadvantage is that temperatures
higher than 180 °C lead to the formation of inhibitory com-
pounds such as furfural, hydroxymethylfurfural and phenols
that are inhibiting for bioconversion [92]. Hydrothermal or
pressurized hot water (110–180 °C, 6–25 bar) pretreatment
work at relatively lower temperatures and yield lower inhibi-
tory compounds.
Biological Pretreatments
Biological pretreatments are based on natural microorgan-
isms that degrade lignin and hemicellulose in biomass, such
as fungi, bacteria, and enzymes. White rot fungi extracted
from decaying wood are the most promising microbes used
in biological pretreatment [92]. A macroalgae isolated from
the Mexican Caribbean was pretreated with a Bm-2 strain
(Trametes hirsuta), producing a 20% higher methane yield
[101]. However, these biological methods are limited by
long reaction times and low hydrolysis rates. [89, 102].
Chemical Pretreatments
Chemical pretreatments are generally more effective at
removing lignin and/or hemicellulose and exposing the
13
 Table 1  Proximate and elemental composition of dried biomass from pelagic Sargassum inundations
2776

Site and year of Nigeria Dominican Ghana Trinidad Barbados Mexican Carib- Mexican Carib- Cancun, Mexico Turks and Caicos China China
collection (2012) [76] Republic (2015) [78] and Tobago (2018) [75] bean bean (2019) [80] (2019) [50] [81] [82]

13
(2015) [73] (2017) (2018) [40] (2018–2019) [74]
[79]

Moisture (%) 9.0 ± 0.14 18.9 ± 0.05 20.63 ± 0.93 83–86 81.98–87.41
(on fresh bio- (on fresh bio-
mass) mass)
Ash (%) 8.65 ± 0.07 13.43 ± 0.01 31.82 ± 1.34 18.1–23.9 33.63–46.94 19.40
Proximate analysis
Protein (%) 15.4 ± 0.0 4.7 ± 0.23 8.1–10.3 2.99–4.19
Lipids (%) 2.5 ± 0.07 0.01 ± 0.00 2.5–3.4 3.58–4.56
Carbohydrates 57.3 ± 0.21 63.1 ± 0.06 14.0–17.0 11.68–27.40
(%)
Crude fibre (%) 7.15 ± 0.21 31.15–37.41
Elemental analysis
Ag (ppm) < 0.6
Al (ppm) 303–4188 2300.08 ± 57.73 < 140–517 0.032 16.21–37.5
As (ppm) 13.7–42.3 13–53.5 35.22 ± 0.61 29.0–65.7 24–172 20.94–123.69
B (ppm) 10,224–
116,294
Ba (ppm) 6.8–16.5 < 36 0.243
Be (ppm) 0.006–0.053
C (%) 27.50 ± 0.65 (%TS a) 26.8–33.0 28.8 27.41–29.23 19.40 25.9
Ca (ppm) 96,901– 48,895.20 ± 1232.16 23,723–136,146 539.5 26,020–70,306
133,400
Cd (ppm) 0.1–0.3 78–119 0.79 ± 0.01 0.32–1.36 <2 0.09–0.13
Ce (ppm) 0.4–3.2
Cl (ppm) 22.5–1353 747–53,101
Co (ppm) 0.4–1.1 6.51 ± 0.15 < 11
Cr (ppm) 2.3–55.5 12.96 ± 0.39 <8 0.011 < 0.43
Cu (ppm) 1.6–11.9 24–36 25.08 ± 0.59 < 0.20–1.09 < 6–540 0.036 1.25–2.91
Fe (ppm) 8700 ± 280 20–655 1209–5910 2398.37 ± 52.52 24.0–54.6 < 3–11 0.251 81.58–3811
H (%) 4.16 ± 0.30 (%TS a) 3.4 3.13–3.7 5.57
Hg (ppm) 0.5–1.4 1–2 1.36 ± 0.04 < 0.01
I (ppm) 40 ± 0 <1
K (ppm) 28,000 ± 740 2208–33,602 0.72–2.48 49,973.09 ± 1179.36 1990–46,002 7444–69,359
Mg (ppm) 42,755 ± 350 10,211– 8233.78 ± 170.44 < 2915–13,662 75.267 12,053–16,547
18,240
Mn (ppm) 15.6–32.2 337.51 ± 7.93 40–139 0.156 < 3–30.15
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
 Table 1  (continued)
Site and year of Nigeria Dominican Ghana Trinidad Barbados Mexican Carib- Mexican Carib- Cancun, Mexico Turks and Caicos China China
collection (2012) [76] Republic (2015) [78] and Tobago (2018) [75] bean bean (2019) [80] (2019) [50] [81] [82]
(2015) [73] (2017) (2018) [40] (2018–2019) [74]
[79]

Mo (ppm) 0.6–3 < 1–7

N (ppm) 6360 ± 200 0.62–1.04 1.21 ± 0.06 (%TS a) 9000–11,000 1.2 (%) 1.28–1.71 (%) 1.38 (%) 3.58 (%)
Na (ppm) 3802–21,068 14,890.65 ± 288.88
Ni (ppm) 10–32.5 34.90 ± 0.90 < 10
O (%) 34.49 ± 0.18 (%TS a) 39.7 20.62–31.79 24.18
P (ppm) 96,500 ± 21,200 761–1145 855.13 ± 11.89 228–401 138.3–500.6
Pb (ppm) 1–2 86–335 0.40 ± 0.01 < 0.20–0.29 < 2–3 0.26–0.48
Rb (ppm) 0.3–10.2 30–143
S (ppm) 60.2–70.3 0.82 ± 0.22 (%TS a) 9462–24,773 0.00–0.40 (%) 0.54 (%) 1.22 (%)
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793

Se (ppm) < 0.0001

Si (ppm) 0.25–0.72 447–2922
Sr (ppm) 1162–1436 1605–2564
Th (ppm) 0.04–0.43 5–23
Ti (ppm) < 29
U (ppm) 37.3–91.7 11–48
V (ppm) 1.1–2.8 25.76 ± 0.64 < 3–13
Zn (ppm) 50 ± 0 12.7–20.6 16–100 105.65 ± 2.16 3.6–7.2 < 5–17 0.098 5.81–35.64
Zr (ppm) 7.6–38.2 <2
a
TS: total solids (79.30 ± 0.93 wt.%)

13
2777
2778
cellulose fraction. These methods include alkalis, perox-
ides, Brønsted acids, organosolv (organic solvent + inor-
ganic acid), ozone, ionic liquids, and deep eutectic solvents
[86, 89, 103, 104].
Alkali pretreatments use mild temperatures (< 160 °C)
but longer times (hours to weeks) and follow a saponification
mechanism of intermolecular ester bonds crosslinking hemi-
cellulose and lignin to remove both biopolymers [97]. In
dilute acid pretreatments, hemicellulose can be completely
removed from biomass at high temperatures (160–220 °C)
and short times (< 30 min) following irreversible first-order
kinetics in the hydrolysis to xylose. Organosolv can fraction-
ate biomass into solid lignin, solid cellulose fibers and an
aqueous hemicellulose stream [103]. Finally, ionic liquids
degrade biomass by dissolving cellulose and/or removing
lignin via ionic, π–π, and hydrogen bonding interactions
[104, 105].
Comparison of Pretreatments Techniques
Other pretreatments outside of the aforementioned classi-
fications include ultrasonication [86], and microwave [92].
Overall, all pretreatment methods have advantages and dis-
advantages that must be considered at the laboratory, pilot,
or industrial scales (Table 2).
Even though pretreatments may increase biogas yields,
they require high-energy inputs, and it is difficult to achieve
a positive net energy balance. For this reason, it is necessary
to investigate the energy assessment of pretreatments [92]
in terms of Energy Return Over Investment (EROI) [106].
The energy required during pretreatments has been studied
for different techniques [107–109].
For instance, hydrothermal pretreatment is a very promis-
ing method for brown algae, since it improves methane yield
with a net positive energy balance [92].
Production of Biogas by Anaerobic Digestion
of Macroalgae
The use of macroalgae as feedstock in bioenergy received
intensive scrutiny for the first time as part of the US Ocean
Food and Energy Farm project as proposed by Wilcox
[110].
Biogas production using algal biomass has been widely
studied as a green and alternative renewable technology
[111]. Recent advances in biogas production by anaerobic
digestion (AD) of macroalgae were extensively described
[112] with a focus on pretreatments, operational and envi-
ronmental parameters, future challenges and prospects for
scaled-up applications [96, 99, 113]. One critical aspect of
AD of marine macroalgae in the inhibition by halogenated
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
compounds [114] and sea salts. The hydrolytic, acidogenic,
acetogenic and hydrogenotrophic methanogenic bacteria
are typically metabolized at different salinities, but aceto-
clastic methanogens were severely inhibited at high saline
conditions. The acclimation of the inoculum at seawater
concentrations could overcome this problem [115]. The
optimal C:N ratio for anaerobic digestion seems to be spe-
cies dependent [112]. Biogas yield also depend on a wide
range of other variables such as inoculum, temperature,
reactor configuration and feedstock composition. Seasonal
and geographical biochemical variations were observed
with consequent change in fermentable solids and meth-
ane production [85]. Even different segments of seaweeds
showed significant variation in biochemical composition
and methane potential [116]. Temperature strongly influ-
ences AD [117] and the best results were obtained at
35–37 °C. In addition, the volatile solid concentration of
seaweeds strongly affects the methane yield. Montingelli
et al. [118] found that at the longest pretreatment time
(15 min) Laminaria sp. produced the highest methane yield
(240 ­LCH4 ­kgVS−1) at the intermediate tested VS concen-
tration (2.5%), while A. nodosum showed the best yield
(169 ­LCH4 ­kgVS−1) at the minimum tested VS concentra-
tion (1%). Finally, the inoculum source had a significant
impact on AD because of different bacterial communities.
Anaerobically digested sewage sludge seemed effective
as inoculum for start-up of various substrates including
seaweeds [119]. Batch anaerobic digestion is the simplest
and most common configuration used worldwide. The main
macroalgae species studied for AD methane production in
laboratory batch reactors during the last decade are pre-
sented in Table 3.
In some studies, AD seemed to be successful even with-
out pretreatments, washing or removal of epiphytes [144].
After 25 days, no significant improvement was recorded by
mechanical pretreatment with respect to the untreated Lami-
naria spp. [87]. Ball milling on dry samples and microwave
pretreatment on wet samples decreased the methane yield
when compared to untreated macroalgae. Otherwise, pre-
treatments improved AD in most studies.
Nielsen et al. [140] investigated the effect of mechani-
cal maceration pretreatment and observed that it increased
methane yield by 68% (U. lactuca), 17% (C. linum) and
11% (G. vermiculophylla). AD of chopped and wet U. lac-
tuca seems promising and more efficient than biomass pre-
treated in other ways [142]. Mechanical pretreatment was
also effective on F. serratus, F. vesiculosus Linnaeus, G.
gracilis, L. digitata, and P. caniculata, increasing biogas
yield 182%, 222%, 110%, 51%, and 179%, respectively,
compared to untreated biomass [122]. Beating is frequently
used in mechanical pretreatment on seaweeds, performing
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
two main actions: cutting and high-pressure beating. Beat-
ing is suitable for wet or dry biomass, and a previous work
has reported a 37% increase in methane yields compared to
untreated biomass [118].
Microwave pretreatment dehydrates seaweed based on
irradiation, increasing biogas yields from AD with much
shorter residence times compared to other pretreatment
methods [118]. A microwave pretreatment and its com-
bination with F ­ e3O4 nanoparticles (acting as a heteroge-
neous catalyst) enhanced biogas yields from green algae
as compared to individual ones and control [146]. The
ultrasonic pretreatment, microwave, and ultrasonic pre-
treatment combined with microwave improved methane
yields by 67, 56, and 85%, respectively, when compared
with the mechanical pretreatment of F. vesiculosus and F.
serratus [127].
Hydrothermal pretreatment of seaweeds increased biogas
yields, compared to untreated samples [98, 147]. Steam
explosion of S. latissima increased methane yield up to 20%
[139]. Methane yields from S. latissima also increased after
hydrotermal pretreatment in a two-stage process consisting
of a dark fermentation to produce biohydrogen followed by
anaerobic digestion [137]. On the other hand, thermal pre-
treatments did not improve AD for U. lactuca [142] and
P. palmata [145]. Also thermochemical pretreatment of L.
japonica wastes at different temperatures (20–80 °C) with
HCl and industrial flue gas condensate did not improve sig-
nificantly the biomethane yield [133].
Table 2  Advantages and disadvantages of pretreatment methods [94]
Pretreatment method Advantages
Mechanical • Reduced cellulose crystallinity
Biological • Lignin and hemicellulose degradation
• Low energy requirement
• Environmentally friendly
Dilute acid • Short reaction times (1–30 min)
• Removal of hemicellulose via hydrolysis to xylose
• Alters lignin structure
Hot water • Short reaction times (1–30 min)
• No chemical required
• Removal of hemicellulose
Alkali • Mild temperatures (25–160 °C)
• Removal of lignin and hemicellulose
• No formation of fermentation inhibitors
Ionic Liquids • Dissolution of cellulose and/or lignin
• Solvents are non-volatile
Steam explosion • Short reaction times (1–15 min)
• Removal of hemicellulose and lignin
AFEX • Short reaction times (5–45 min)
• Increased surface area
• Reduced cellulose crystallinity
• No formation of fermentation inhibitors
2779
The enzymatic, acid, and combined pretreatments of L.
digitata did not improve significantly biogas yields. Cel-
lulase was the most effective enzyme, but it resulted in a
biogas yield of 232 L ­kgVS−1 that was very close to results
from untreated samples (228 L k­ gVS−1). Pretreatment with
alginate lyase was irrelevant (225 L∙kgVS− 1), whereas the
commercial Celluclast® drastically reduced the biogas yield
(72 L ­kgVS−1). Among organic acids, pretreatment with
2.5% citric acid was the most effective (237 L ­ biogas ­kgVS−1),
whereas 1% oxalic acid, 1% lactic acid, 6% oxalic acid, 6%
lactic acid and 6% citric acid reduced biogas yields (169 L
­kgVS−1, 161 L ­kgVS− , 83 L ­kgVS−1, 101 L ­kgVS−1, and 69 L
­kgVS−1, respectively) compared to untreated samples. Even
the combination of enzymatic and acid pretreatment did not
improve significantly the biogas yield [130].
Semi-continuous and continuously stirred tank reactors
have been used to study AD of macroalgae, but there is no
consensus in regards to their advantage over batch systems
[112, 138]. Few pilot-scale studies were also published [133,
148].
Anaerobic Digestion of Sargassum
The BMP of brown algae is in the range of 204–380 L ­kg−1
[1], representing 50% of the theoretical value of methane.
Among brown macroalgae, Sargassum is a potential source
to produce biomethane by AD. It is an ideal biomass because
of its high polysaccharides and negligible lignin content;
Disadvantages
• High energy consumption
• Low hydrolysis rate
• Long reaction times
• High temperatures (160–220 °C) and pressures
• Formation of fermentation inhibitors
• High temperatures (160–220 °C)
• Formation of fermentation inhibitors
• Long reaction times (60 min—weeks)
• Salt formation
• Chemical consumption (no recovery)
• Expensive solvents
• Solvents may be inhibitory to fermentation
• High temperatures (180–290 °C)
• Formation of fermentation inhibitors
• No removal of hemicellulose or lignin
• Not suitable for high lignin biomass
13
2780
therefore, it undergoes an almost complete hydrolysis. Nev-
ertheless, the low C/N ratio (less than 20:1) and the presence
of structurally complex polysaccharides, salts, sulfur poly-
saccharides, and polyphenols could limit methane yields [6,
149]. Sargassum is potentially the largest natural source of
polyphenols in the open ocean, reaching a content of 29.5 mg
­g−1 dw (dry weight) [50], but it can inhibit AD. Recently,
methane yields from pelagic Sargassum were between 65
and 145 L­ CH4 ­kgVS−1, corresponding to the 17–39% of the
theoretical yield [50]. In another study, three species of S.
natans and S. fluitans produced 113 L ­ CH4 ­kgVS−1. The low
methane potential of pelagic Sargassum can be attributed
to its rich total indigestible fibre content (even higher than
30%, as shown in Table 1) [50]. Also the low lipid content
negatively affect the biogas production.
Since samples cannot be transported wet from the place
of collection to the appropriate laboratories, they need to
be dried out. However, the difference in BMP between wet
and dried Sargassum is not very significant [50]. Also the
difference in methane yields between washed and unwashed
samples was not statistically significant [150]. Nevertheless,
these data may vary since the composition of Sargassum
depends on the species, season, and location. Some authors
suggest that Sargassum mono-digestion is not sustainable
for energy extraction given its low bioconversion efficiency
and unpredictable flow volume [6]. However, the potential
of Sargassum for biogas production could be fully exploited
by appropriate pretreatments before AD (see Table 4), to
increase the bioavailability of not easily fermentable poly-
saccharides for microbial hydrolysis.
Autoclaving provided the highest methane yield at 541
­LCH4 ­kgVS−1 from Sargassum sp. [157]. A fungal pretreat-
ment by Trametes hirsuta produced a 20% increase in
methane yields of Mexican Caribbean macroalgae [101].
Hydrothermal pretreatment of pelagic Sargassum prior to
AD improved the methane yield and decreased the H ­ 2S
concentration in biogas [75, 98]. Ensilage may address the
problem of discontinuity, since it did not affect the methane
yield [154].
In addition to pretreatments, a possible solution to low
methane yields could be co-digestion of Sargassum with
readily biodegradable substrates [98]. Co-digestion helps
increase C/N ratio, dilute salinity and inhibitors, balance
nutrient supply, and overcome problems of Sargassum sea-
sonality by continuous biogas production. The co-digestion
of glycerol and S. muticum increased C/N ratio closer to
the optimal value for AD and improved methane yield from
70 L ­kgVS−1 (only S. muticum) to 210 L ­kgVS−1 (50% glyc-
erol and 50% S. muticum) [158]. Co-digestion of Sargas-
sum sp. with glycerol and waste frying oil increased the bio-
chemical methane potential by 56% and 46%, respectively,
compared to digestion of macroalga [156]. Co-digestion of
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
pelagic Sargassum and food wastes increased methane pro-
duction when compared with mono-digestion of macroal-
gae, because the addition of food waste optimizes the C/N
balance, increased the concentration of macronutrients and
provided lipids to the seaweed feed [98]. Other macroal-
gae were co-digested with cattle manure [140], dairy slurry
[141, 159], sewage sludge, sugar industry wastewater [160],
waste-activated sludge, wheat straw [139] both in batch and
continuous processes [96].
Finally, Sargassum could be used as a feedstock in a
biorefinery with biogas recovery, to valorize all the compo-
nents of macroalgae.
Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals
in Sargassum and its Implications
on Anaerobic Digestion
The proclivity of Sargassum to sequester heavy metals is a
result of the high metal ion binding capacity of its cell wall
[161]. The presence of alginate and carboxylic groups in the
Sargassum cell structure allow the capture of metal ions in
water, in a greater or lesser capacity, depending on the pH
of the seawater [20]. The binding mechanisms include ion
exchange, chelation, adsorption and ion entrapment in the
polysaccharide network of the algae [74].
Toxic heavy metals detected in Sargassum include arse-
nic, cadmium, copper, cobalt, chromium, iron, molybdenum,
nickel, manganese, lead and zinc [73]. In a spatial and tem-
poral study of Sargassum in the Mexican Caribbean only
arsenic (24–172 ppm dry weight) and manganese (median
40–139 ppm dry weight) were present in all samples [74].
A cause of concern is that 86% of samples presented arsenic
concentrations above 40 ppm, the maximum allowable con-
tent for seaweeds to be used as animal food under European
regulations [162]. Arsenic concentration in organic matrices
destined for soil amendments, should not exceed the high-
est natural levels found in soil (1–40 ppm) [163]. Mexico
restricts the maximum allowable arsenic concentration in
products for agricultural soils to 22 ppm [74].
It is likely that Sargassum acquires heavy metals in the
ocean, before entering coastal waters. Fernandez et al. [164]
identified sewage discharge, fertilizer and pesticide use as
main sources of contamination. More recently, Wang et al.
[5] indicated that increased deforestation and fertilizer use
in Brazil may be important sources of nutrients for the Great
Atlantic Sargassum Belt that extends from West Africa to
the Gulf of Mexico. In this case, Sargassum is a promising
biomass for biosorption and bioremediation purposes.
However, metal ions bound to a Sargassum -based
organic feedstock may lead to salt accumulation and reduced
anaerobic digestion performance [92]. Even cations like
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
magnesium, calcium and potassium can poison microbial
cultures or foul an AD reactor [83]. In addition to lower
methane yields, the heavy metals in the digestate pose dis-
posal problems and hinder any use as fertilizer [165]. Across
several studies, arsenic is the most abundant and problematic
toxic metal in Sargassum, with concentrations as high as
231 ppm [166]. The downstream bioaccumulation issue of
arsenic and other heavy metals in digestate biomass and soils
have prompted proposals for bioremediation. For instance,
arsenic content may be reduced in digestate after anaerobic
digestion if Sargassum is mixed with other biomass sources
(e.g., wood chips) prior to AD [150]. Also, washing and
drying a Sargassum-based matrix prior to pretreatment and
AD, may reduce heavy metal content [142]. Biochar, a by-
product of biomass pyrolysis, can be useful for AD [167], as
it can act as an adsorbent of heavy metals and other diges-
tion inhibitors from the Sargassum-based feedstock [168].
Finally, the heavy metal contaminants can be removed from
seaweed by mobilization into a liquid phase and subsequent
metal ions adsorption [169].
These bioremediation approaches for AD and digestate
by-product are highly dependent on the nature and quan-
tity of the organic waste, process design and the material
balances of the heavy metals to avoid any waste treatment
problems.
Outlook: Nanoparticles
Nanotechnology has promising applications in enhancing
the methane concentration and biogas production. Indeed,
nanoparticles can improve the activity of organic matter-
degrading microorganisms in an anaerobic digester by
biostimulating the bacterial cells [170]. Typically, possible
good nanoparticles are based on zero-valent metals, metal
and metallic oxides or carbon [171]. Faisal et al. summa-
rized that adequate concentrations of several nano-additives
­(CeO2, ­Fe2O4, ­Fe2O3, ­Fe3O4, Fe/SiO2, Pt/SiO2, Co/SiO2, Ni/
SiO2, Co, Ni, Fe, ZnO) increased methane production [172].
­Fe3O4 nanoparticles are the most investigated materials
thanks to their high biocompatibility and low toxicity. They
were implemented to enhance the biogas production from
cattle dung slurry [173, 174], organic fraction of municipal
solid waste [175], poultry litter [176], heat pretreated waste
sludge [177]. Nevertheless, the selection of type, size and
concentration of nanoparticles is crucial and have a strong
impact on biogas yield, anaerobic digestion process stability,
and ­H2S and other impurities in biogas production [178].
Some nanoparticles could inhibit the biogas production rate,
by suppressing acetoclastic methanogens and inhibiting
­H2-consuming methanogenes [171]. As an example, ZnO,
CuO, ­Mn2O3 and ­Al2O3 affected negatively the anaerobic
2781
digestion and strongly decreased the biogas production
[179], as well as Ag and ­CeO2 [180].
Despite several works about nanoparticles-aided anaero-
bic digestion from different substrates, very few studied con-
cerned the macroalgal biomass and focused on the positive
effect of nanoparticles on the anaerobic digestion of green
algae. The biogas production from green algae Enteromor-
pha was increased by Ni, Co, ­Fe3O4, MgO nanoparticles
[181, 182], also in combination with a microwave pretreat-
ment [146, 183–185]. The best performances were obtained
after 170 h by adding 10 mg L ­ −1 of F
­ e3O4 or 1 mg L ­ −1 of
Ni nanoparticles, resulting in cumulative biogas increase of
28% and 26%, respectively. The biogas production from 20 g
of dry algae powder was 624 mL for ­Fe3O4 and 618 mL
for Ni [181]. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge,
brown macroalgae has never been investigated concerning
this aspect. Moreover, the ecotoxicity of the nanoparticles-
containing digestate and its suitable disposal need to be
exploited. This point needs to be explored in the future to
ascertain the economic feasibility of improved methane
generation.
Conclusion: Perspectives, Challenges,
and Next Steps
Efforts to cultivate algal biomass (e.g., microalgae) on a
large scale for energy purposes have proven costly, in part
due to high infrastructure costs for growing and harvest-
ing [186]. On the other hand, the problematic inundation
of pelagic Sargassum biomass (i.e., macroalgae) on coast-
lines presents a “free” and ready-to-use marine crop as a
potential source for products in major commercial sectors
in food, agriculture, construction, chemicals, and biofuels
[187, 188].
Indeed, beach or near-shore invasions of pelagic Sargas-
sum in the Caribbean require strategies to minimize detri-
mental effects and turn this problem into an opportunity.
Sargassum can have a higher energy potential compared to
other biomasses and its use in anaerobic digestion for pro-
duction of methane can reduce drying costs before process-
ing [186]. In addition, Sargassum has low lignocellulose
content which favors production of methane [187]. There-
fore, accumulated macroalgae is a renewable waste biomass
to be anaerobically digested to biomethane (and biohydrogen
by dark fermentation). However, the readiness of Sargassum
comes at a cost, as specialized machinery and boat harvest-
ers are needed to collect Sargassum from coastlines. Also,
despite the constant influx of Sargassum in coasts since
2011, the seasonal availability for long-term and sustain-
able use, remains a concern [98].
The potential of algal biomass for bioenergy produc-
tion has been widely recognized, however few studies are
13
2782 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793

Table 3  Biomethane production by AD of macroalgae in batch experiments

Macroalgae Temperature Time Pretreatment Methane yield References
(°C) (days) (LCH4 ­kgVS−1)

Ascophyllum nodosum Brown 38 14 Cutting, mechanical pretreatment 169 [118]

by a Hollander beater (15 min)
Brown algae 35 60 Grinding 179 [120]
Fucus serratus 35 109 Drying (room temperature), milling 161 (biogas) [121]
−1
37 21 None 64.2 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS ) [122]
Mechanical by a Hollander beater 181.2 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1)
Fucus vesiculosus 37 20 Washing, drying (53 °C), hydro- 37–71 [123]
thermal pretreatment (20–80 °C)
Washing, drying (53 °C), thermo- 37–65
acidic pretreatment (20–80 °C,
FGC)
Washing, drying (53 °C), thermo- 52–116
acidic pretreatment (20–80 °C,
HCl)
21 None 71.5 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1) [122]
−1
Mechanical by a Hollander beater 230.5 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS )
22 Freezing (− 18 °C), mechanical 68.4–84.3 [124]
pre-treatment
Freezing (− 18 °C), mechani- 78.9–130.1
cal pre-treatment, microwave
(1.5 min)
Freezing (− 18 °C), mechanical 116.6–146.9
pre-treatment, microwave (3 min)
25 Unwashed, chopping 120 [125]
Washing, chopping 134
52 None 67 [126]
Thermal pre-treatment (50 °C) 41
Mechanical pre-treatment (50 °C) 92
Enzymatic pre-treatment with cel- 49
lulase, hemicellulase, pectinase,
protease (50 °C)
Mechanical + enzymatic pre-treat- 131
ment (50 °C)
Fucus vesiculosus + Fucus serratus 37 20 Mechanical (washing, grinding) 140.5 [127]
Mechanical + Ultrasounds 235
Mechanical + Microwave 220
Mechanical + Ultrasounds + Micro- 260
wave
Laminaria digitata 20 54 Drying (75 °C), milling 111 [128]
35 Drying (75 °C), milling 184
21 Washing, cutting, oven drying 222.6 [129]
(105 °C), grinding, dark fermen-
tation
Washing, cutting, oven drying 282.2
(105 °C), grinding, hydrothermal
pretreatment, dark fermentation

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793 2783

Table 3  (continued)
Macroalgae Temperature Time Pretreatment Methane yield References
(°C) (days) (LCH4 ­kgVS−1)

Washing, cutting, oven drying 271

(105 °C), grinding, enzymolysis,
dark fermentation
Washing, cutting, oven drying 294.2
(105 °C), grinding, hydrothermal
pretreatment, enzymolysis, dark
fermentation
Washing, cutting, oven drying 164.9
(105 °C), grinding, hydrother-
mal dilute acid pretreatment
(HTDAP), dark fermentation
Washing, cutting, oven drying 159.4
(105 °C), grinding, hydrother-
mal dilute acid pretreatment
(HTDAP), enzymolysis, dark
fermentation
32 None 228 (biogas) [130]
Enzymatic pretreatment 72–232 (biogas)
Organic acid pretreatment 69–237 (biogas)
Combined enzymatic + acid pre- 76–243 (biogas)
treatment
35 No washing, oven drying (70 °C), 235.4 [93]
milling
No washing, freezing (− 20 °C), 191.7
oven drying (70 °C), milling
No washing, shock-freezing with 239.7
liquid nitrogen, freeze-drying,
milling
Washing, oven drying (70 °C), 202.9
milling
Washing, freezing (− 20 °C), oven 248.1
drying (70 °C), milling
Washing, shock-freezing with 257.7
liquid nitrogen, freeze-drying,
milling
109 Drying (room temperature), milling 246 [121]
37 21 None 103.3 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1) [122]
Mechanical by a Hollander beater 156.4 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1)
30 None 280 [131]
Washing with cold water (15 °C), 303
cutting
Washing with cold water (15 °C), 326
maceration
Washing with hot water (40 °C), 307
cutting
Washing with hot water (40 °C), 308
maceration
45 54 Drying (75 °C), milling 141 [128]
−1
Laminaria hyperborea 35 N.A Chopping, blending 65.6 (L ­kgTS ) [132]
Laminaria japonica 35 75 Washing, drying (60 °C), milling 267.5 [115]
N.A 22 Untreated 172 [133]

13
2784 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793

Table 3  (continued)
Macroalgae Temperature Time Pretreatment Methane yield References
(°C) (days) (LCH4 ­kgVS−1)

Thermochemical pretreatment with 156–171

0.05–0.5 M HCl (20 °C)
Thermochemical pretreatment with 150–180
0.05–0.5 M HCl (50 °C)
Thermochemical pretreatment with 149–168
0.05–0.5 M HCl (80 °C)
Laminaria sp. (L. digitata, Saccha- 38 14 Cutting, beating (15 min) 240 [118]
rina latissima, L. hyperborea)
25 Cutting 328 [87]
Cutting, beating (10 min) 335
Cutting, drying (24 h), ball milling 241–260
Cutting, microwave 244
Laminaria spp. 50 21 Mechanical by a Hollander beater 430 (L ­kgTS−1) [134]
Macroalgae consortium 38 29 Washing 81 [101]
Washing, biological pretreatment 104
(Bm-2 strain white rot fungi)
Washing, biological pretreatment 86
(enzymatic broth)
Nizimuddinia zanardini 37 40 Washing, drying (40 °C), milling 117 [135]
Washing, drying (40 °C), milling, 143
hot water pretreatment
Pelvetia caniculata 37 21 None 159.3 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1) [122]
Mechanical by a Hollander beater 444.3 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1)
340 [136]
Saccharina latissima 35 11 Washing, drying (105 °C), pulveri- 281.4 [137]
zation, dark fermentation
Washing, drying (105 °C), pulveri- 318.8
zation, hydrotermal pretreatment
(100 °C), dark fermentation
Washing, drying (105 °C), pulveri- 344.6
zation, hydrotermal pretreatment
(120 °C), dark fermentation
Washing, drying (105 °C), pulveri- 345.1
zation, hydrotermal pretreatment
(140 °C), dark fermentation
Washing, drying (105 °C), pulveri- 337.8
zation, hydrotermal pretreatment
(160 °C), dark fermentation
Washing, drying (105 °C), pulveri- 278.7
zation, hydrotermal pretreatment
(180 °C), dark fermentation
109 Drying (room temperature), milling 335 [121]
60 Drying (40 °C), chopping 209 [138]
37 119 Grinding 223 [139]
Grinding, pretreatment (130 °C, 268
10 min)
Grinding, pretreatment (160 °C, 260
10 min)
53 34 Washing, chopping 340 [140]

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793 2785

Table 3  (continued)
Macroalgae Temperature Time Pretreatment Methane yield References
(°C) (days) (LCH4 ­kgVS−1)

Saccorhiza polyschides 35 109 Drying (room temperature), milling 255 [121]

Chaetomorpha linum Green 53 34 Washing, chopping 166 [140]
Green algae 35 60 Grinding 256 [120]
Ulva spp. 35 109 Drying (room temperature), milling 191 [121]
Ulva lactuca 35 30 Untreated 183.2 [141]
Wiltered, unwashed 165
Washing, drying 250.2
Wiltered, washing 221.1
37 58 Chopping 162 [142]
37 65 Washing, sun-drying, oven-drying 498.75 [143]
(50 °C), milling, ozonation pre-
treatment (30 min)
53 34 Washing, chopping 152 [140]
55 42 Chopping 174 [142]
55 42 Maceration 271 [142]
Washing, chopping 171
Washing, maceration 200
Washing, pretreatment (110 °C, 157
20 min)
Washing, pretreatment (130 °C, 187
20 min)
Drying (45 °C), grinding 176
Chaetomorpha linum + Gracilari- Green/Red 25 57 None 50 [144]
opsis longissima
35 160
55 < 10
Filamentous red algae Red 37 52 None 212 [126]
Thermal pre-treatment (50 °C) 139
Mechanical pre-treatment (50 °C) 223
Enzymatic pre-treatment with cel- 167
lulase, hemicellulase, pectinase,
protease (50 °C)
Mechanical + enzymatic pre-treat- 217
ment (50 °C)
Gracilaria gracilis 37 21 None 81.8 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS−1) [122]
−1
Mechanical by a Hollander beater 171.8 ­(Lbiogas ­kgTS )
Gracilaria vermiculophylla 53 34 Washing, chopping 132 [140]
Palmaria palmata 35 N.A None 308 [145]
Maceration (20 °C) 328
Thermal pretreatment (120 °C) 296
Thermal pretreatment (160 °C) 269
Thermal pretreatment (180 °C) 268
Thermal pretreatment (200 °C) 211
NaOH + Thermal pretreatment 282
(160 °C)
KCl + Thermal pretreatment 268
(160 °C)
60 Drying, chopping + NaOH 363.5 [145]
Drying (40 °C), chopping 257 [138]

13
2786 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793

available on the economic feasibility of their exploitation.
The biochemical methane potential (BMP) of Sargassum
ranges from 41.8 to 541 L/kgVS, strongly dependent on sea-
sonality, sampling timing, pretreatments, and operating con-
ditions. Sargassum accumulation in the Caribbean Sea and
Central Atlantic Ocean is estimated at 47.2 million metric
tons for 2020 and the digestion of this biomass would poten-
tially yield 94,600 GWh/yr. Notwithstanding the energy
potential and biomass readiness of Sargassum, its mono-
digestion for methane production resulted in low yields well
below the theoretical maximum [186], that impeded the sus-
tainable large scale exploitation as feedstock [98].
This review has extensively covered mitigating actions
to improve methane production from Sargassum. Adequate
pretreatments to break down the cell wall, and co-digestion
with other biomass sources may enhance the biogas yield
and make the process more cost-effective. Specifically, co-
digestion aimed at increasing the carbon to nitrogen ratio
(C:N) of Sargassum from 10 to 30, as the addition of high
carbon biomass (e.g., food waste, woodchips, paper, saw-
dust) can optimize methane yields as much as five times
[98, 187]. As an example, energy and economic analyses
were recently implemented also for the Caribbean islands
of St. Lucia and Grenada, where dried Sargassum beached
for around 2 months did not resulted very productive for
anaerobic digestion, except in co-digestion with food waste
[67]. Moreover, a very recent publication assessed the
techno-economic feasibility and environmental impact of
pelagic Sargassum exploitation in Barbados [189]. Here, the
co-digestion of Sargassum and raw food wastes at a mass
ratio of 25:75 resulted economically sustainable, produc-
ing—from 15,750 tons of substrate per year—0.69 GWh of
electricity, 1.04 GWh of heat and 15,750 tons of digestate,
for a total potential income of US $ 12.76 million.
In addition, the selection of suitable nanoparticles may
yield greater biogas production and needs attention. Finally,
we consider reasonable the operation of biomethanation
in local small and medium sized biogas plants to produce

Table 4  Biomethane production by AD of Sargassum species in batch experiments

Macroalgae Temperature Time Pretreatment Methane yield References
(°C) (days) [LCH4 ­kgVS−1]

Macroalgae consortium 38 29 Washing 81 [101]

Washing, biological pretreatment 104
S. natans I N.A 28 None 65.8 [50]
S. natans VIII 145.1
S. fluitans 112.7
Mixed pelagic Sargas- 35 21 Untreated 48.23 [98]
sum (S. fluitans, S.
natans)
Hydrothermal 102.52
Washing, sun-drying (2 weeks), heating (80 °C) 41.8 [75]
Washing, sun-drying (2 weeks), heating (80 °C), hydrothermal 116.7
pretreatment
S. muticum N.A 30 Drying (105 °C, grinding) 166–208 [151]
30 40 Washing, grinding 102 [152]
Washing, grinding, extraction, autohydrolysis (150 °C) 170
35 40 Grinding 130 [153]
37 28 Unwashed 225 [150]
Washing 177
Untreated 100 [154]
Untreated, ensilage (60 days) 110
Chopping, ensilage (60 days) 60
36 Grinding, unwashed 128.2–139.7 [155]
Grinding, washing 163.2–170.2
Sargassum sp. 35 60 Washing, air-drying, milling 77.7–327.5* [81]
−1
37 42 Drying (37 °C), milling 181 L ­kgCOD [156]
Drying (room temperature), milling, autoclaving, dark fermenta- 541 [157]
tion

*Increasing methane yield with decreasing sodium concentration from 24.08 to 0.49 g/L

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
electricity, heat and upgraded biomethane for coastal
communities.
Unfortunately, the challenges posed by the seasonal
availability, logistical constraints, chemical composi-
tion diversity among Sargassum species, feedstock con-
tamination (e.g., salt), and presence of toxic heavy met-
als (e.g., arsenic), have hindered the commercial use of
this feedstock. Despite these challenges, scientists are
hopeful about the potential of Sargassum as feedstock,
and its component richness that could be processed for
many applications [190]. Hence, researchers are study-
ing all technical barriers, upstream (i.e., availability and
logistics) and downstream (i.e., composition, Sargassum
contamination and toxins) that deter commercialization of
value-added products from Sargassum.
To overcome downstream technical obstacles, research-
ers are looking into more spatial and temporal sampling of
Sargassum across regions to better understand the seasonal
variations in chemical composition. Also, a thorough assess-
ment of toxins is needed to identify the type and concentra-
tion of heavy metals that lower methane yields via microbial
culture poisoning. In addition, it is urgent to develop proto-
cols about the risks of toxins in Sargassum transferring to
soils and food crops [187]. For instance, chemical reports
of total arsenic are of little use if the speciation of arsenic
to differentiate its toxic inorganic form versus its non-toxic
organic form, is not investigated.
Due to the constraints of each Sargassum application, it
is concluded that a biorefinery approach should be devel-
oped to effectively valorize this abundant biomass. Indeed,
Sargassum biomass has potential applications as a source of
food, food ingredients, and health-related biomocules, for
agricultural uses, in bioremediation of effluents. Therefore,
the economic viability of anaerobic digestion of macroalgae
would be improved by co-production of value-added prod-
ucts and feed supplements in a biorefinery concept [191].
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to professor Natale
Arcuri and professor Vincenza Calabrò for team coordination support.
We also thank Smart City Instruments, a spin-off from the University
of Calabria, and Dr. Angelo Macilletti who coordinated collaboration
efforts between Smart City Instruments, University of Calabria (UNI-
CAL) and Universidad Federico Henriquez y Carvajal (UFHEC). We
appreciate the support of our undergraduate students at UFHEC, Jho-
natan Dipré García and Rosa García, for assisting with data collection
efforts.
Funding This research was supported by Fondo Nacional de Inno-
vación y Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDOCyT) of Domini-
can Republic, under Ministerio de Educación Superior, Ciencia y
Tecnología (MESCyT) for the Project: Innovación en los Procesos
de Tratamiento de los Sargazos: evaluación de PBM (Potencial Bio-
químico de Metano) y análisis de nuevas tecnologías para la gener-
ación de biogás. Research Award No. 2018-2019-3C2-341.
2787
References
1. Song, M., Duc Pham, H., Seon, J., Chul Woo, H.: Marine brown
algae: a conundrum answer for sustainable biofuels production.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 782–792 (2015). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​05.​021
2. Rushdi, M.I., Abdel-Rahman, I.A.M., Saber, H., Attia, E.Z.,
Abdelraheem, W.M., Madkour, H.A., Hassan, H.M., Elmaidomy,
A.H., Abdelmohsen, U.R.: Pharmacological and natural products
diversity of the brown algae genus Sargassum. RSC Adv. 10,
24951–24972 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1039/​d0ra0​3576a
3. Wei, N., Quarterman, J., Jin, Y.: Marine macroalgae: an untapped
resource for producing fuels and chemicals. Trends Biotechnol.
31, 70–77 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tibte​ch.​2012.​10.​009
4. Huffard, C.L., Von Thun, S., Sherman, A.D., Sealey, K., Smith,
K.L.: Pelagic sargassum community change over a 40-year
period: temporal and spatial variability. Mar. Biol. 161, 2735–
2751 (2014)
5. Wang, M., Hu, C., Barnes, B.B., Mitchum, G., Lapointe, B.,
Montoya, J.P.: The great Atlantic Sargassum belt. Science 365,
83–87 (2019)
6. Thompson, T.M., Young, B.R., Baroutian, S.: Pelagic sargassum
for energy and fertiliser production in the Caribbean: a case study
on Barbados. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 118, 109564 (2020).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2019.​109564
7. Lapointe, B.E., West, L.E., Sutton, T.T., Hu, C.: Ryther revisited:
nutrient excretions by fishes enhance productivity of pelagic sar-
gassum in the western North Atlantic Ocean. J. Exp. Mar. Bio.
Ecol. 458, 46–56 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jembe.​2014.​
05.​002
8. Mattio, L., Payri, C.E.: 190 years of sargassum taxonomy, fac-
ing the advent of DNA phylogenies. Bot. Rev. 77, 31–70 (2011).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12229-​010-​9060-x
9. Murakami, K., Yamaguchi, Y., Noda, K., Fujii, T., Shinohara, N.,
Ushirokawa, T., Sugawa-Katayama, Y., Katayama, M.: Seasonal
variation in the chemical composition of a marine brown alga,
Sargassum horneri (Turner) C. Agardh. J. Food Compos. Anal.
24, 231–236 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jfca.​2010.​08.​004
10. Nomura, M., Kamogawa, H., Susanto, E., Kawagoe, C., Yasui,
H., Saga, N., Hosokawa, M., Miyashita, K.: Seasonal variations
of total lipids, fatty acid composition, and fucoxanthin contents
of Sargassum horneri (Turner) and Cystoseira hakodatensis
(Yendo) from the northern seashore of Japan. J. Appl. Phycol. 25,
1159–1169 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10811-​012-​9934-x
11. Costa, L.S., Fidelis, G.P., Telles, C.B.S., Dantas-Santos, N.,
Camara, R.B.G., Cordeiro, S.L., Costa, M.S.S.P., Almeida-Lima,
J., Melo-Silveira, R.F., Oliveira, R.M., Albuquerque, I.R.L.,
Andrade, G.P.V., Rocha, H.A.O.: Antioxidant and antiprolif-
erative activities of heterofucans from the seaweed Sargassum
filipendula. Mar. Drugs. 9, 952–966 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​md906​0952
12. Namvar, F., Mohamad, R., Baharara, J., Zafar-Balanejad, S.,
Fargahi, F., Rahman, H.S.: Antioxidant, antiproliferative, and
antiangiogenesis effects of polyphenol-rich seaweed (Sargassum
muticum). Biomed. Res. Int. (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​
2013/​604787
13. Pérez-López, P., Balboa, E.M., González-García, S., Domínguez,
H., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T.: Comparative environmental
assessment of valorization strategies of the invasive macroalgae
Sargassum muticum. Bioresour. Technol. 161, 137–148 (2014).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2014.​03.​013
14. Mehdinezhad, N., Ghannadi, A., Yegdaneh, A.: Phytochemical
and biological evaluation of some Sargassum species from Per-
sian Gulf. Res. Pharm. Sci. 11, 243–249 (2016)
13
2788
15. Yende, S.R., Harle, U.N., Chaugule, B.B.: Therapeutic potential
and health benefits of Sargassum species. Pharmacogn. Rev. 8,
1–7 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​4103/​0973-​7847.​125514
16. Martínez-Molina, E.C., Freile-Pelegrín, Y., Ovando-Chacón,
S.L., Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A., Ruiz-Cabrera, M., Grajales-
Lagunes, A., Luján-Hidalgo, M.C., Abud-Archila, M.: Develop-
ment and characterization of alginate-based edible film from Sar-
gassum fluitans incorporated with silver nanoparticles obtained
by green synthesis. J. Food Meas. Charact. (2021). https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11694-​021-​01156-6
17. Caribbean Alliiance for Sustainable Tourism; Caribbean Hotel
and Tourism Association. Sargassum: a resource guide for the
Caribbean. Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association, Coral
Gables, FL (2015). http://​doi.​org/​10.​25607/​OBP-​798
18. Wang, M., Hu, C.: Mapping and quantifying Sargassum distri-
bution and coverage in the Central West Atlantic using MODIS
observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 183, 350–367 (2016).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rse.​2016.​04.​019
19. Xu, Z., Gao, G., Xu, J., Wu, H.: Physiological response of a
golden tide alga (Sargassum muticum) to the interaction of ocean
acidification and phosphorus enrichment. Biogeosciences 14,
671–681 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​bg-​14-​671-​2017
20. Chávez, V., Uribe-Martínez, A., Cuevas, E., Rodríguez-Martínez,
R.E., van Tussenbroek, B.I., Francisco, V., Estévez, M., Celis,
L.B., Monroy-Velázquez, L.V., Leal-Bautista, R., Álvarez-Filip,
L., García-Sánchez, M., Masia, L., Silva, R.: Massive influx of
pelagic Sargassum spp. on the coasts of the Mexican Carib-
bean 2014–2020: challenges and opportunities. Water 12, 2908
(2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​w1210​2908
21. Oviatt, C.A., Huizenga, K., Rogers, C.S., Miller, W.J.: What
nutrient sources support anomalous growth and the recent sargas-
sum mass stranding on Caribbean beaches? A review. Mar. Pol-
lut. Bull. 145, 517–525 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​
lbul.​2019.​06.​049
22. Schell, J.M., Goodwin, D.S., Siuda, A.N.S.: Recent Sargassum
inundation events in the Caribbean: shipboard observations
reveal dominance of a previously rare form. Oceanography 28,
8–11 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5670/​ocean​og.​2015.​70
23. Gower, J.F.R., King, S.A.: Distribution of floating Sargassum in
the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean mapped using MERIS.
Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 1917–1929 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​01431​16100​36396​60
24. Brooks, M.T., Coles, V.J., Hood, R.R., Gower, J.F.R.: Factors
controlling the seasonal distribution of pelagic Sargassum. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 599, 1–18 (2018). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 354/m
​ eps1​
2646
25. Gower, J., Hu, C., Borstad, G., King, S.: Ocean color satellites
show extensive lines of floating Sargassum in the Gulf of Mex-
ico. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 3619–3625 (2006).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TGRS.​2006.​882258
26. Webster, R.K., Linton, T.: Development and implementation of
Sargassum early advisory system (SEAS). Shore & Beach 81,
1–6 (2013)
27. Gower, J., King, S.: Satellite images show the movement of float-
ing Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Nat.
Preced. (2008). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​npre.​2008.​1894.1
28. García-Sánchez, M., Graham, C., Vera, E., Escalante-Mancera,
E., Álvarez-Filip, L., van Tussenbroek, B.I.: Temporal changes in
the composition and biomass of beached pelagic Sargassum spe-
cies in the Mexican Caribbean. Aquat. Bot. 167, 103275 (2020).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aquab​ot.​2020.​103275
29. Franks, J.S., Johnson, D.R., Ko, D.S., Rubio, G.S., Hendon, J.R.,
Lay, M.: Unprecedented influx of pelagic Sargassum along Car-
ibbean Island coastlines during summer 2011. In: Proceedings of
the 64th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. pp. 6–8., Puerto
Morelos, Mexico: (2011)
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
30. Franks, J.S., Johnson, D.R., Ko, D.S.: Pelagic Sargassum in
the Tropical North Atlantic. Gulf Caribb. Res. 27, SC6–SC11
(2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​18785/​gcr.​2701.​08
31. Johnson, D.R., Ko, D.S., Franks, J.S., Morena, P., Sanchez-
Rubio, G.: The Sargassum invasion of the Eastern Caribbean
and dynamics of the equatorial North Atlantic. In: Proceedings
of the 65th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute., Santa Marta,
Colombia: (2012)
32. Gower, J., Young, E., King, S.: Satellite images suggest a new
Sargassum source region in 2011. Remote Sens. Lett. 4, 764–773
(2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21507​04X.​2013.​796433
33. Putman, N.F., Goni, G.J., Gramer, L.J., Hu, C., Johns, E.M., Tri-
nanes, J., Wang, M.: Simulating transport pathways of pelagic
Sargassum from the equatorial Atlantic into the Caribbean Sea.
Prog. Oceanogr. 165, 205–214 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
pocean.​2018.​06.​009
34. Gower, J., King, S.: The distribution of pelagic Sargassum
observed with OLCI. Int. J. Remote Sens. 41, 5669–5679 (2020).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01431​161.​2019.​16582​40
35. Johns, E.M., Lumpkin, R., Putman, N.F., Smith, R.H., Muller-
Karger, F.E., Rueda-Roa, T., Hu, D., Wang, C., Brooks, M.,
Gramer, M.T., Werner, L.J.: The establishment of a pelagic
Sargassum population in the tropical Atlantic: biological con-
sequences of a basin-scale long distance dispersal event. Prog.
Oceanogr. 182, 102269 (2020). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.p​ ocean.​
2020.​102269
36. Eastern Caribbean Region & Data Description, https://​optics.​
marine.u​ sf.e​ du/c​ gi-b​ in/o​ ptics_d​ ata?r​ oi=E
​ CARIB ​ &D ​ ate=1​ 1/2​ 4/​
2020&​Pass=​V1748#​C2020​26920​20275.​1KM.​ECARIB.​7DAY.​
L3D.​FA_​DENSI​TY
37. Outlook of Sargassum blooms in: the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of
Mexico, https://​optics.​marine.​usf.​edu/​proje​cts/​saws.​html
38. Wang, M., Hu, C., Cannizzaro, J., English, D., Han, X., Naar,
D., Lapointe, B., Brewton, R., Hernandez, F.: Remote sensing of
Sargassum biomass, nutrients, and pigments. Geophys. Res. Lett.
45, 12359–12367 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2018G​L0788​
58
39. Wang, M., Hu, C.: Predicting Sargassum blooms in the Carib-
bean Sea from MODIS observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44,
3265–3273 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​2017G​L0729​32
40. Vázquez-Delfín, E., Freile-Pelegrín, Y., Salazar-Garibay, A.,
Serviere-Zaragoza, E., Méndez-Rodríguez, L.C., Robledo, D.:
Species composition and chemical characterization of Sargassum
influx at six different locations along the Mexican Caribbean
coast. Sci. Total Environ. (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​
tenv.​2021.​148852
41. Masunga, R.H., Uzokwe, V.N., Mlay, P.D., Odeh, I., Singh, A.,
Buchan, D., De Neve, S.: Nitrogen mineralization dynamics of
different valuable organic amendments commonly used in agri-
culture. Appl. Soil Ecol. 101, 185–193 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​apsoil.​2016.​01.​006
42. Sembera, J.A., Meier, E.J., Waliczek, T.M.: Composting as an
alternative management strategy for Sargassum drifts on coast-
lines. Horttechnology 28, 80–84 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
21273/​HORTT​ECH03​836-​17
43. Robledo, D., Vázquez-Delfín, E., Freile-Pelegrín, Y., Vásquez-
Elizondo, R.M., Qui-Minet, Z.N., Salazar-Garibay, A.: Chal-
lenges and opportunities in relation to Sargassum events along
the Caribbean Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–13 (2021). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3389/​fmars.​2021.​699664
44. Smetacek, V., Zingone, A.: Green and golden seaweed tides on
the rise. Nature. 504, 84–88 (2013). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 038/n​ atur​
e12860
45. Grens, K.: Swamped by Sargassum: The new normal for Carib-
bean beaches. https://​www.​the-​scien​tist.​com/​noteb​ook/​swamp​
ed-b​ y-s​ argas​ sum--t​ he-n​ ew-n​ ormal-f​ or-c​ aribb​ ean-b​ eache​ s-6​ 6091
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
46. Rodríguez-Martínez, R.E., Medina-Valmaseda, A.E., Blanchon,
P., Monroy-Velázquez, L.V., Almazán-Becerril, A., Delgado-
Pech, B., Vásquez-Yeomans, L., Francisco, V., García-Rivas,
M.C.: Faunal mortality associated with massive beaching and
decomposition of pelagic Sargassum. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146,
201–205 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​2019.​06.​
015
47. van Tussenbroek, B.I., Hernández Arana, H.A., Rodríguez-
Martínez, R.E., Espinoza-Avalos, J., Canizales-Flores, H.M.,
González-Godoy, C.E., Barba-Santos, M.G., Vega-Zepeda, A.,
Collado-Vides, L.: Severe impacts of brown tides caused by
Sargassum spp. on near-shore Caribbean seagrass communities.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 122, 272–281 (2017). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
marpo​lbul.​2017.​06.​057
48. Maurer, A.S., De Neef, E., Stapleton, S.: Sargassum accumula-
tion may spell trouble for nesting sea turtles. Front. Ecol. Envi-
ron. 13, 394–395 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1890/​1540-​9295-​
13.7.​394
49. Doyle, E., J. Franks.: Sargassum Fact Sheet. Gulf and Caribbean
Fisheries Institute (2015)
50. Milledge, J.J., Maneein, S., Arribas Lopez, E., Bartlett, D.: Sar-
gassum inundations in Turks and Caicos: methane potential and
proximate, ultimate, lipid, amino acid, metal and metalloid anal-
yses. Energies 13, 1523 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en130​
61523
51. Louime, C., Fortune, J., Gervais, G.: Sargassum invasion of
coastal environments: a growing concern. Am. J. Environ. Sci.
13, 58–64 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3844/​ajessp.​2017.​58.​64
52. Dirección General de Presupuesto - Ministerio de Hacienda
- República Dominicana: Informe anual de la evaluación
de la ejecución física y financiera, https://​www.​trans​paren​
ciafi​scal.​gob.​do/​docum​ents/​20127/​95704/​Infor​me+​Anual+​
Evalu​acion+​Ejecu​cion+​Física-​Finan​ciera+​2019_.​pdf/​8503c​
b74-​5b7a-af3b-410e-79e3532a51a7
53. Colombo, C.V., Cuevas, R., A.: Biogas generation from different
organic waste: case studies of bioremediation and community
development in Argentina and Dominican Republic. Proc. LAC-
CEI Int. Multi-conference Eng. Educ. Technol. 27–31: (2020).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​18687/​LACCE​I2020.1.​1.​211
54. Liranzo-Gómez, R.E., García-Cortés, D., Jáuregui-Haza, U.:
Adaptation and sustainable management of massive influx of
Sargassum in the Caribbean. Procedia Environ. Sci. Eng. Manag.
8, 543–553 (2021)
55. Wu, Y., Zhao, F., Liu, S., Wang, S., Qiu, L., Alexandrov, G.,
Jothiprakash, V.: Bioenergy production and environmen-
tal impacts. Geosci. Lett. (2018). https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 186/​
s40562-​018-​0114-y
56. Ceotto, E.: Grasslands for bioenergy production: a review. Sus-
tain. Agric. 28, 141–151 (2009). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/9​ 78-9​ 0-​
481-​2666-8_​11
57. Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B.L., Weindl, I., Biewald,
A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J.P., Klein, D., Kreidenweis, U.,
Müller, C., Rolinski, S., Stevanovic, M.: Large-scale bioenergy
production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ.
Res. Lett. (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​aa9e3b
58. Bonsch, M., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B., Dietrich,
J.P., Rolinski, S., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Weindl, I.,
Gerten, D., Stevanovic, M.: Trade-offs between land and water
requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. GCB Bioen-
ergy. 8, 11–24 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcbb.​12226
59. Bryngelsson, D.K., Lindgren, K.: Why large-scale bioenergy
production on marginal land is unfeasible: a conceptual partial
equilibrium analysis. Energy Policy 55, 454–466 (2013). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2012.​12.​036
60. Wicke, B., Smeets, E., Watson, H., Faaij, A.: The current bio-
energy production potential of semi-arid and arid regions in
2789
sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass and Bioenergy. 35, 2773–2786
(2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2011.​03.​010
61. Nijsen, M., Smeets, E., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D.P.: An evalu-
ation of the global potential of bioenergy production on degraded
lands. GCB Bioenergy 4, 130–147 (2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/j.​1757-​1707.​2011.​01121.x
62. Raheem, A., Prinsen, P., Vuppaladadiyam, A.K., Zhao, M.,
Luque, R.: A review on sustainable microalgae based biofuel
and bioenergy production: recent developments. J. Clean. Prod.
181, 42–59 (2018). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.j​ clepr​ o.2​ 018.0​ 1.1​ 25
63. Bhushan, S., Kalra, A., Simsek, H., Kumar, G., Prajapati, S.K.:
Current trends and prospects in microalgae-based bioenergy pro-
duction. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 104025 (2020). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jece.​2020.​104025
64. Rangabhashiyam, S., Behera, B., Aly, N., Balasubramanian, P.:
Biodiesel from microalgae as a promising strategy for renewable
bioenergy production—a review. J. Environ. Biotechnol. Res. 6,
260–269 (2017)
65. Robledo-Abad, C., Althaus, H.J., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Cor-
bera, E., Creutzig, F., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Geddes, A., Gregg, J.S.,
Haberl, H., Hanger, S., Harper, R.J., Hunsberger, C., Larsen,
R.K., Lauk, C., Leitner, S., Lilliestam, J., Lotze-Campen, H.,
Muys, B., Nordborg, M., Ölund, M., Orlowsky, B., Popp, A.,
Portugal-Pereira, J., Reinhard, J., Scheiffle, L., Smith, P.: Bio-
energy production and sustainable development: science base
for policymaking remains limited. GCB Bioenergy. 9, 541–556
(2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcbb.​12338
66. Paola, M.G., De Mazza, I., Paletta, R., Lopresto, C.G., Calabr, V.:
Small-scale biodiesel production plants—an overview. Energies
14, 1901 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en140​71901
67. Morrison, M., Gray, D.: Anaerobic digestion economic feasibil-
ity study: generating energy from waste, sewage and sargassum
seaweed in the OECS, London (2017)
68. Sissini, M.N., De Barros Barreto, M.B.B., Szećhy, M.T.M., De
Lucena, M.B., Oliveira, M.C., Gower, J., Liu, G., De Oliveira
Bastos, E., Milstein, D., Gusmão, F., Martinelli-Filho, J.E.,
Alves-Lima, C., Colepicolo, P., Ameka, G., De Graftjohnson, K.,
Gouvea, L., Torrano-Silva, B., Nauer, F., De Castronunes, M.,
Bonomibarufi, J., Rörig, J., Riosmena-Rodríguez, L., Mello, R.,
Lotufo, T.J., Horta, L.V.C.: The floating Sargassum (Phaeophy-
ceae) of the South Atlantic Ocean—likely scenarios. Phycologia
56, 321–328 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​2216/​16-​92.1
69. Hu, C., Murch, B., Barnes, B.B., Wang, M., Marechal, J., Franks,
J., Johnson, D., Lapointe, B., Goodwin, D.S., Schell, J., Siuda,
A.N.S.: Sargassum watch warns of incoming seaweed. Eos
(Washington. DC) 97, 1–9 (2016)
70. Walsh, K. T.: Examining the quality of a compost product derived
from sargassum (Sargassum fluitans and Sargassum natans)
(Unpublished thesis). Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas
(2019)
71. Milledge, J.J., Harvey, P.J.: Golden tides: problem or golden
opportunity? The valorisation of Sargassum from beach inun-
dations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 4, 60 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
jmse4​030060
72. Montingelli, M.E., Tedesco, S., Olabi, A.G.: Biogas production
from algal biomass: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43,
961–972 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2014.​11.​052
73. Fernández, F., Boluda, C.J., Olivera, J., Guillermo, L.A., Gómez,
B., Echavarria, E., Mendis Gómez, A.: Análisis Elemental Pro-
spectivo De La Biomasa Algal Acumulada En Las Costas De La
República Dominicana. Rev. Cent. Azúcar. 44, 11–22 (2017)
74. Rodríguez-Martínez, R.E., Roy, P.D., Torrescano-Valle, N.,
Cabanillas-Terán, N., Carrillo-Domínguez, S., Collado-Vides, L.,
García-Sánchez, M., van Tussenbroek, B.I.: Element concentra-
tions in pelagic Sargassum along the Mexican Caribbean coast in
13
2790
2018-2019. PeerJ 8, 1–19 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​7717/​peerj.​
8667
75. Thompson, T.M., Young, B.R., Baroutian, S.: Efficiency of
hydrothermal pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of pelagic
Sargassum for biogas and fertiliser recovery. Fuel 279, 118527
(2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2020.​118527
76. Oyesiku, O.O., Egunyomi, A.: Identification and chemical studies
of pelagic masses of Sargassum natans (Linnaeus) Gaillon and S.
fluitans (Borgessen) Borgesen (brown algae), found offshore in
Ondo State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 13, 1188–1193 (2014).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​ajb20​13.​12335
77. Oucif, H., Benaissa, M., Mehidi, S.A., Prego, R., Auborg, S.P.,
Abi-Ayad, S.-M.E.-A.: Chemical composition and nutritional
value of different seaweeds from the West Algerian Coast. J.
Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 29, 90–104 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​10498​850.​2019.​16953​05
78. Addico, G.N.D., DeGraft-Johnson, K.A.A.: Preliminary inves-
tigation into the chemical composition of the invasive brown
seaweed Sargassum along the West Coast of Ghana. Afr. J. Bio-
technol. 15, 2184–2191 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​ajb20​15.​
15177
79. Mohammed, A., Riversa, A., Stuckeyb, D.C., Ward, K.: Algi-
nate extraction from Sargassum seaweed in the Caribbean region:
optimization using response surface methodology. Carbohydr.
Polym. 245, 116419 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​carbp​ol.​
2020.​116419
80. López-Aguilar, H., Kennedy-Puentes, G., Gómez, J., Huerta-
Reynoso, E., Peralta-Pérez, M.D.R., de la Serna, F.Z.D., Pérez-
Hernández, A.: Practical and theoretical modeling of anaerobic
digestion of Sargassum spp. In the Mexican Caribbean. Pol. J.
Environ. Stud. 30, 3151–3161 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​15244/​
pjoes/​128735
81. Zhang, Y., Li, L., Kong, X., Zhen, F., Wang, Z., Sun, Y., Dong,
P., Lv, P.: Inhibition effect of sodium concentrations on the anaer-
obic digestion performance of Sargassum species. Energy and
Fuels 31, 7101–7109 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​energ​
yfuels.​7b005​57
82. Wang, S., Wang, Q., Jiang, X., Han, X., Ji, H.: Compositional
analysis of bio-oil derived from pyrolysis of seaweed. Energy
Convers. Manag. 68, 273–280 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
encon​man.​2013.​01.​014
83. Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S.: Inhibition of anaerobic
digestion process: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 4044–4064
(2008). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2007.​01.​057
84. Devault, D.A., Pierre, R., Marfaing, H., Dolique, F., Lopez, P.J.:
Sargassum contamination and consequences for downstream
uses: a review. J. Appl. Phycol. 33, 567–602 (2021). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10811-​020-​02250-w
85. Tedesco, S., Daniels, S.: Optimisation of biogas generation
from brown seaweed residues: compositional and geographical
parameters affecting the viability of a biorefinery concept. Appl.
Energy 228, 712–723 (2018). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.a​ pener​ gy.​
2018.​06.​120
86. del Río, P.G., Gomes-dias, J.S., Rocha, C.M.R., Romaní, A., Gar-
rote, G., Domingues, L.: Recent trends on seaweed fractionation
for liquid biofuels production. Bioresour. Technol. 299, 122613
(2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2019.​122613
87. Montingelli, M.E., Benyounis, K.Y., Stokes, J., Olabi, A.G.: Pre-
treatment of macroalgal biomass for biogas production. Energy
Convers. Manag. 108, 202–209 (2016). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
encon​man.​2015.​11.​008
88. Sierra, R., Smith, A., Granda, C., Holtzapple, M.T.: Producing
fuels and chemicals from lignocellulosic biomass. Chem. Eng.
Prog. 104, S10–S18 (2008)
89. Kumar, P., Barrett, D.M., Delwiche, M.J., Stroeve, P.: Meth-
ods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48,
3713–3729 (2009). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​ie801​542g
90. Anastasakis, K., Ross, A.B., Jones, J.M.: Pyrolysis behaviour of
the main carbohydrates of brown macro-algae. Fuel 90, 598–607
(2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2010.​09.​023
91. Maneein, S., Milledge, J.J., Nielsen, B.V., Harvey, P.J.: A review
of seaweed pre-treatment methods for enhanced biofuel produc-
tion by anaerobic digestion or fermentation. Fermentation 4, 100
(2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ferme​ntati​on404​0100
92. Thompson, T.M., Young, B.R., Baroutian, S.: Advances in the
pretreatment of brown macroalgae for biogas production. Fuel
Process Technol. 195, 106151 (2019)
93. Adams, J.M.M., Schmidt, A., Gallagher, J.A.: The impact of
sample preparation of the macroalgae Laminaria digitata on
the production of the biofuels bioethanol and biomethane. J.
Appl. Phycol. 27, 985–991 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10811-​014-​0368-5
94. De Frias, J.A. Switchable butadiene sulfone pretreatment of lig-
nocellulosic biomass (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign) (2013). http://​hdl.​handle.​net/​2142/​45403
95. Sathitsuksanoh, N., Zhu, Z., Wi, S., Zhang, Y.-H.P.: Cellulose
solvent-based biomass pretreatment breaks highly ordered hydro-
gen bonds in cellulose fibers of switchgrass. Biotechnol. Bioeng.
108, 521–529 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​bit.​22964
96. Ganesh Saratale, R., Kumar, G., Banu, R., Xia, A., Periyasamy,
S., Dattatraya Saratale, G.: A critical review on anaerobic diges-
tion of microalgae and macroalgae and co-digestion of biomass
for enhanced methane generation. Bioresour. Technol. 262,
319–332 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2018.​03.​030
97. Sun, Y., Cheng, J.: Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for
ethanol production: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 83, 1–11
(2002). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0960-​8524(01)​00212-7
98. Thompson, T.M., Young, B.R., Baroutian, S.: Enhancing biogas
production from caribbean pelagic Sargassum utilising hydro-
thermal pretreatment and anaerobic co-digestion with food waste.
Chemosphere 275, 130035 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
chemo​sphere.​2021.​130035
99. Song, M., Pham, H.D., Seon, J., Woo, H.C.: Overview of anaero-
bic digestion process for biofuels production from marine mac-
roalgae: a developmental perspective on brown algae. Korean
J. Chem. Eng. 32, 567–575 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11814-​015-​0039-5
100. Flórez-Fernández, N., Illera, M., Sánchez, M., Lodeiro, P., Tor-
res, M.D., López-Mosquera, M.E., Soto, M., de Vicente, M.S.,
Domínguez, H.: Integrated valorization of Sargassum muticum
in biorefineries. Chem. Eng. J. (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
cej.​2020.​125635
101. Tapia-Tussell, R., Avila-Arias, J., Domínguez Maldonado, J.,
Valero, D., Olguin-Maciel, E., Pérez-Brito, D., Alzate-Gaviria,
L.: Biological pretreatment of mexican caribbean macroalgae
consortiums using Bm-2 strain (Trametes hirsuta) and its enzy-
matic broth to improve biomethane potential. Energies 11, 494
(2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en110​30494
102. Ferdeş, M., Dincă, M.N., Moiceanu, G., Zabava, B., Paraschiv,
G.: Microorganisms and enzymes used in the biological pretreat-
ment of the substrate to enhance biogas production: a review.
Sustainability 12, 7205 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su121​
77205
103. Blanch, H.W., Simmons, B.A., Klein-Marcuschamer, D.: Bio-
mass deconstruction to sugars. Biotechnol. J. 6, 1086–1102
(2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​biot.​20100​0180
104. Mora-Pale, M., Meli, L., Doherty, T.V., Linhardt, R.J., Dordick,
J.S.: Room temperature ionic liquids as emerging solvents for
the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Biotechnol. Bioeng.
108, 1229–1245 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​bit.​23108
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
105. Li, C., Knierim, B., Manisseri, C., Arora, R., Scheller, H.V.,
Auer, M., Vogel, K.P., Simmons, B.A., Singh, S.: Comparison
of dilute acid and ionic liquid pretreatment of switchgrass: bio-
mass recalcitrance, delignification and enzymatic saccharifica-
tion. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4900–4906 (2010). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2009.​10.​066
106. Marques, A., de L., Araújo, O. de Q.F., Cammarota: M.C.:
Biogas from microalgae: an overview emphasizing pretreat-
ment methods and their energy return on investment (EROI).
Biotechnol. Lett. 41, 193–201 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10529-​018-​2629-x
107. Cho, S., Park, S., Seon, J., Yu, J., Lee, T.: Evaluation of thermal,
ultrasonic and alkali pretreatments on mixed-microalgal biomass
to enhance anaerobic methane production. Bioresour. Technol.
143, 330–336 (2013). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iorte​ ch.2​ 013.0​ 6.​
017
108. Ometto, F., Quiroga, G., Pšenička, P., Whitton, R., Jefferson,
B., Villa, R.: Impacts of microalgae pre-treatments for improved
anaerobic digestion: thermal treatment, thermal hydrolysis, ultra-
sound and enzymatic hydrolysis. Water Res. 65, 350–361 (2014).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​watres.​2014.​07.​040
109. Passos, F., Ferrer, I.: Microalgae conversion to biogas: thermal
pretreatment contribution on net energy production. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 48, 7171–7178 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es500​
982v
110. Wilcox, H.A.: The U.S. navy’s ocean food and energy farm
project. In: Proceedings of the energy technology conference.
pp. 83–104., Houston, Texas (1977)
111. Hughes, A.D., Kelly, M.S., Black, K.D., Stanley, M.S.: Biogas
from macroalgae: is it time to revisit the idea? Biotechnol. Bio-
fuels 5, 86 (2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​1754-​6834-5-​86
112. McKennedy, J., Sherlock, O.: Anaerobic digestion of marine
macroalgae: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1781–
1790 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​07.​101
113. Chen, H., Zhou, D., Luo, G., Zhang, S., Chen, J.: Macroalgae for
biofuels production: progress and perspectives. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 47, 427–437 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​
2015.​03.​086
114. Nielsen, B.V., Maneein, S., Mahmud Al Farid, M.D., Milledge,
J.J.: The effects of halogenated compounds on the anaerobic
digestion of macroalgae. Fermentation 6, 85 (2020). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3390/​FERME​NTATI​ON603​0085
115. Zhang, Y., Alam, M.A., Kong, X., Wang, Z., Li, L., Sun, Y.,
Yuan, Z.: Effect of salinity on the microbial community and per-
formance on anaerobic digestion of marine macroalgae. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 92, 2392–2399 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​jctb.​5246
116. Tabassum, M.R., Xia, A., Murphy, J.D.: Biomethane produc-
tion from various segments of brown seaweed. Energy Convers.
Manag. 174, 855–862 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​
man.​2018.​08.​084
117. Jung, H., Kim, J., Lee, C.: Temperature effects on methanogen-
esis and sulfidogenesis during anaerobic digestion of sulfur-rich
macroalgal biomass in sequencing batch reactors. Microorgan-
isms 7, 682 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​micro​organ​isms7​
120682
118. Montingelli, M.E., Benyounis, K.Y., Quilty, B., Stokes, J., Olabi,
A.G.: Influence of mechanical pretreatment and organic concen-
tration of Irish brown seaweed for methane production. Energy
118, 1079–1089 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2016.​
10.​132
119. Obata, O., Ditchfield, A., Hatton, A., Akunna, J.: Investigating
the impact of inoculum source on anaerobic digestion of various
species of marine macroalgae. Algal Res. 46, 101803 (2020).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​algal.​2020.​101803
2791
120. Gurung, A., Van Ginkel, S.W., Kang, W.C., Qambrani, N.A., Oh,
S.E.: Evaluation of marine biomass as a source of methane in
batch tests: a lab-scale study. Energy 43, 396–401 (2012). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2012.​04.​005
121. Vanegas, C.H., Bartlett, J.: Green energy from marine algae:
Biogas production and composition from the anaerobic digestion
of Irish seaweed species. Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom).
34, 2277–2283 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09593​330.​2013.​
765922
122. Tedesco, S., Benyounis, K.Y., Olabi, A.G.: Mechanical pre-
treatment effects on macroalgae-derived biogas production in
co-digestion with sludge in Ireland. Energy 61, 27–33 (2013).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2013.​01.​071
123. Barbot, Y.N., Falk, H.M., Benz, R.: Thermo-acidic pretreatment
of marine brown algae Fucus vesiculosus to increase methane
production—a disposal principle for macroalgae waste from
beaches. J. Appl. Phycol. 27, 601–609 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s10811-​014-​0339-x
124. Romagnoli, F., Pastare, L., Sabūnas, A., Bāliņa, K., Blumberga,
D.: Effects of pre-treatment on biochemical methane potential
(BMP) testing using Baltic Sea Fucus vesiculosus feedstock.
Biomass and Bioenergy 105, 23–31 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2017.​06.​013
125. Pastare, L., Aleksandrovs, I., Lauka, D., Romagnoli, F.: Mechani-
cal pre-treatment effect on biological methane potential from
marine macro algae: results from batch tests of Fucus Vesicu-
losus. Energy Procedia 95, 351–357 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​egypro.​2016.​09.​021
126. Li, H., Kjerstadius, H., Tjernström, E., Davidsson, Å: Evaluation
of pretreatment methods for increased biogas production from
macro algae., Malmö, Sweden (2013)
127. Wu, Y.N., Mattsson, M., Ding, M.W., Wu, M.T., Mei, J., Shen,
Y.L.: Effects of different pretreatments on improving biogas pro-
duction of macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus and Fucus serratus in
Baltic Sea. Energy and Fuels 33, 2278–2284 (2019). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1021/​acs.​energ​yfuels.​8b042​24
128. Vanegas, C., Bartlett, J.: Anaerobic digestion of Laminaria digi-
tata: the effect of temperature on biogas production and composi-
tion. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 4, 509–515 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s12649-​012-​9181-z
129. Ding, L., Cheng, J., Lin, R., Deng, C., Zhou, J., Murphy, J.D.:
Improving biohydrogen and biomethane co-production via two-
stage dark fermentation and anaerobic digestion of the pretreated
seaweed Laminaria digitata. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119666 (2020).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​119666
130. Vanegas, C.H., Hernon, A., Bartlett, J.: Enzymatic and organic
acid pretreatment of seaweed: effect on reducing sugars produc-
tion and on biogas inhibition. Int. J. Ambient Energy. 36, 2–7
(2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01430​750.​2013.​820143
131. Tabassum, M.R., Xia, A., Murphy, J.D.: Comparison of pre-
treatments to reduce salinity and enhance biomethane yields of
Laminaria digitata harvested in different seasons. Energy 140,
546–551 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2017.​08.​070
132. Hinks, J., Edwards, S., Sallis, P.J., Caldwell, G.S.: The steady
state anaerobic digestion of Laminaria hyperborea—effect of
hydraulic residence on biogas production and bacterial com-
munity composition. Bioresour. Technol. 143, 221–230 (2013).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2013.​05.​124
133. Barbot, Y.N., Thomsen, C., Thomsen, L., Benz, R.: Anaerobic
digestion of Laminaria japonica waste from industrial produc-
tion residues in laboratory- and pilot-scale. Mar. Drugs 13,
5947–5975 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​md130​95947
134. Tedesco, S., Barroso, M., Olabi, T.: A.G.: Optimization of
mechanical pre-treatment of Laminariaceae spp. biomass-derived
biogas. Renew. Energy. 62, 527–534 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​renene.​2013.​08.​023
13
2792
135. Yazdani, P., Zamani, A., Karimi, K., Taherzadeh, M.J.: Char-
acterization of Nizimuddinia zanardini macroalgae biomass
composition and its potential for biofuel production. Bioresour.
Technol. 176, 196–202 (2015). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iorte​ ch.​
2014.​10.​141
136. Rodriguez, C., Alaswad, A., El-Hassan, Z., Olabi, A.G.: Improve-
ment of methane production from P. canaliculata through
mechanical pretreatment. Renew. Energy. 119, 73–78 (2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2017.​12.​025
137. Lin, R., Deng, C., Ding, L., Bose, A., Murphy, J.D.: Improving
gaseous biofuel production from seaweed Saccharina latissima:
the effect of hydrothermal pretreatment on energy efficiency.
Energy Convers. Manag. 196, 1385–1394 (2019). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2019.​06.​044
138. Jard, G., Jackowiak, D., Carrère, H., Delgenes, J.P., Torrijos, M.,
Steyer, J.P., Dumas, C.: Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic
digestion of Palmaria palmata: comparison with Saccharina
latissima and inhibition studies. Chem. Eng. J. 209, 513–519
(2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​2012.​08.​010
139. Vivekanand, V., Eijsink, V.G.H., Horn, S.J.: Biogas production
from the brown seaweed Saccharina latissima: thermal pre-
treatment and codigestion with wheat straw. J. Appl. Phycol. 24,
1295–1301 (2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10811-​011-​9779-8
140. Nielsen, H.B., Heiske, S.: Anaerobic digestion of macroalgae:
Methane potentials, pre-treatment, inhibition and co-digestion.
Water Sci. Technol. 64, 1723–1729 (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2166/​wst.​2011.​654
141. Allen, E., Browne, J., Hynes, S., Murphy, J.D.: The potential of
algae blooms to produce renewable gaseous fuel. Waste Manag.
33, 2425–2433 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2013.​
06.​017
142. Bruhn, A., Dahl, J., Nielsen, H.B., Nikolaisen, L., Rasmussen,
M.B., Markager, S., Olesen, B., Arias, C., Jensen, P.D.: Bio-
energy potential of Ulva lactuca: Biomass yield, methane pro-
duction and combustion. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2595–2604
(2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2010.​10.​010
143. Hassaan, M.A., El Nemr, A., Elkatory, M.R., Eleryan, A., Ragab,
S., El Sikaily, A., Pantaleo, A.: Enhancement of biogas produc-
tion from macroalgae Ulva latuca via ozonation pretreatment.
Energies 14, 1703 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en140​61703
144. Migliore, G., Alisi, C., Sprocati, A.R., Massi, E., Ciccoli, R.,
Lenzi, M., Wang, A., Cremisini, C.: Anaerobic digestion of
macroalgal biomass and sediments sourced from the Orbetello
lagoon, Italy. Biomass and Bioenergy 42, 69–77 (2012). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2012.​03.​030
145. Jard, G., Dumas, C., Delgenes, J.P., Marfaing, H., Sialve, B.,
Steyer, J.P., Carrère, H.: Effect of thermochemical pretreatment
on the solubilization and anaerobic biodegradability of the red
macroalga Palmaria palmata. Biochem. Eng. J. 79, 253–258
(2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​bej.​2013.​08.​011
146. Zaidi, A.A., Feng, R., Malik, A., Khan, S.Z., Shi, Y., Bhutta, A.J.,
Shah, A.H.: Combining microwave pretreatment with iron oxide
nanoparticles enhanced biogas and hydrogen yield from green
algae. Processes 7, 24 (2019). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 390/p​ r7010​ 024
147. Brown, A.E., Finnerty, G.L., Camargo-Valero, M.A., Ross, A.B.:
Valorisation of macroalgae via the integration of hydrothermal
carbonisation and anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 312,
123539 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2020.​123539
148. Barbot, Y.N., Al-Ghaili, H., Benz, R.: A review on the valoriza-
tion of macroalgal wastes for biomethane production. Mar. Drugs
(2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​md140​60120
149. Milledge, J.J., Nielsen, B.V., Harvey, P.J.: The inhibition of
anaerobic digestion by model phenolic compounds representative
of those from Sargassum muticum. J. Appl. Phycol. 31, 779–786
(2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10811-​018-​1512-4
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
150. Milledge, J.J., Nielsen, B.V., Sadek, M.S., Harvey, P.J.: Effect
of freshwater washing pretreatment on Sargassum muticum as
a feedstock for biogas production. Energies 11, 1771 (2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en110​71771
151. Soto, M., Vázquez, M.A., de Vega, A., Vilariño, J.M., Fernández,
G., de Vicente, M.E.S.: Methane potential and anaerobic treat-
ment feasibility of Sargassum muticum. Bioresour. Technol. 189,
53–61 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2015.​03.​074
152. Flórez-Fernández, N., Illera, M., Sánchez, M., Lodeiro, P., Tor-
res, M.D., López-Mosquera, M.E., Soto, M., de Vicente, M.S.,
Domínguez, H.: Integrated valorization of Sargassum muticum
in biorefineries. Chem. Eng. J. 404, 125635 (2021). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​2020.​125635
153. Jard, G., Marfaing, H., Carrère, H., Delgenes, J.P., Steyer, J.P.,
Dumas, C.: French brittany macroalgae screening: composition
and methane potential for potential alternative sources of energy
and products. Bioresour. Technol. 144, 492–498 (2013). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2013.​06.​114
154. Milledge, J.J., Harvey, P.J.: Ensilage and anaerobic digestion of
Sargassum muticum. J. Appl. Phycol. 28, 3021–3030 (2016).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10811-​016-​0804-9
155. Maneein, S., Milledge, J.J., Harvey, P.J., Nielsen, B.V.: Methane
production from Sargassum muticum: effects of seasonality and
of freshwater washes. Energy Built. Environ. (2020). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​enbenv.​2020.​06.​011
156. Oliveira, J.V., Alves, M.M., Costa, J.C.: Optimization of biogas
production from Sargassum sp. using a design of experiments to
assess the co-digestion with glycerol and waste frying oil. Biore-
sour. Technol. 175, 480–485 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
biort​ech.​2014.​10.​121
157. Costa, J.C., Oliveira, J.V., Pereira, M.A., Alves, M.M., Abreu,
A.A.: Biohythane production from marine macroalgae Sargas-
sum sp. coupling dark fermentation and anaerobic digestion.
Bioresour. Technol. 190, 251–256 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​biort​ech.​2015.​04.​052
158. Milledge, J., Temukum, N.K., Ratana, A., Nielsen, B., Harvey,
P.: Anaerobic digestion (AD) of novel wastes, Energies (2015).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en120​61166
159. Tabassum, M.R., Wall, D.M., Murphy, J.D.: Biogas production
generated through continuous digestion of natural and cultivated
seaweeds with dairy slurry. Bioresour. Technol. 219, 228–238
(2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2016.​07.​127
160. Karray, R., Karray, F., Loukil, S., Mhiri, N., Sayadi, S.: Anaero-
bic co-digestion of Tunisian green macroalgae Ulva rigida with
sugar industry wastewater for biogas and methane production
enhancement. Waste Manag. 61, 171–178 (2017). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2016.​11.​042
161. Anastopoulos, I., Kyzas, G.Z.: Progress in batch biosorption of
heavy metals onto algae. J. Mol. Liq. 209, 77–86 (2015). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​molliq.​2015.​05.​023
162. Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1869 of 7 November 2019
amending and correcting Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum
levels for certain undesirable substances in animal feed. p. 32–36
(2019). http://​data.​europa.​eu/​eli/​reg/​2019/​1869/​oj
163. ATSDR: Toxicological profile for arsenic., Atlanta, GA: (2007)
164. Fernandez, A., Singh, A., Jaffé, R.: A literature review on trace
metals and organic compounds of anthropogenic origin in the
Wider Caribbean Region. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 1681–1691
(2007). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​2007.​08.​007
165. Nkoa, R.: Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of
soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 34, 473–492 (2014). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s13593-​013-​0196-z
166. Yokoi, K., Konomi, A.: Toxicity of so-called edible hijiki sea-
weed (Sargassum fusiforme) containing inorganic arsenic. Regul.
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2022) 13:2769–2793
Toxicol. Pharmacol. 63, 291–297 (2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​yrtph.​2012.​04.​006
167. Rasapoor, M., Young, B., Brar, R., Sarmah, A., Zhuang, W.Q.,
Baroutian, S.: Recognizing the challenges of anaerobic digestion:
Critical steps toward improving biogas generation. Fuel. 261,
116497 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2019.​116497
168. Hale, S.E., Endo, S., Arp, H.P.H., Zimmerman, A.R., Cornelis-
sen, G.: Sorption of the monoterpenes α-pinene and limonene to
carbonaceous geosorbents including biochar. Chemosphere 119,
881–888 (2015). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ hemos​ phere.2​ 014.0​ 8.​
052
169. Nkemka, V.N., Murto, M.: Exploring strategies for seaweed
hydrolysis: Effect on methane potential and heavy metal mobili-
sation. Process Biochem. 47, 2523–2526 (2012). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​procb​io.​2012.​06.​022
170. Abdelsalam, E.M., Samer, M.: Biostimulation of anaerobic diges-
tion using nanomaterials for increasing biogas production. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 18, 525–541 (2019). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1007/​s11157-​019-​09505-0
171. Dehhaghi, M., Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Kazemi Sha-
riat Panahi, H., Nizami, A.S.: A state-of-the-art review on the
application of nanomaterials for enhancing biogas production. J.
Environ. Manag. 251, 109597 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jenvm​an.​2019.​109597
172. Faisal, S., Hafeez, F.Y., Zafar, Y., Majeed, S., Leng, X., Zhao, S.,
Saif, I., Malik, K., Li, X.: A review on nanoparticles as boon for
biogas producers-nano fuels and biosensing monitoring. Appl.
Sci. 9, 1–19 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app90​10059
173. Abdelsalam, E., Samer, M., Attia, Y.A., Abdel-Hadi, M.A.,
Hassan, H.E., Badr, Y.: Comparison of nanoparticles effects on
biogas and methane production from anaerobic digestion of cattle
dung slurry. Renew. Energy 87, 592–598 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​renene.​2015.​10.​053
174. Abdelsalam, E., Samer, M., Attia, Y.A., Abdel-Hadi, M.A., Has-
san, H.E., Badr, Y.: Influence of zero valent iron nanoparticles
and magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles on biogas and methane
production from anaerobic digestion of manure. Energy 120,
842–853 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2016.​11.​137
175. Ali, A., Mahar, R.B., Soomro, R.A., Sherazi, S.T.H.: Fe3O4
nanoparticles facilitated anaerobic digestion of organic fraction
of municipal solid waste for enhancement of methane production.
Energy sources, part A recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 39, 1815–1822
(2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15567​036.​2017.​13848​66
176. Hassanein, A., Lansing, S., Tikekar, R.: Impact of metal nano-
particles on biogas production from poultry litter. Bioresour.
Technol. 275, 200–206 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​
ech.​2018.​12.​048
177. Zhang, Z., Guo, L., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., She, Z., Gao, M., Guo,
Y.: Application of iron oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles during the
two-stage anaerobic digestion with waste sludge: Impact on the
biogas production and the substrate metabolism. Renew. Energy.
146, 2724–2735 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2019.​
08.​078
178. Abdelwahab, T.A.M., Mohanty, M.K., Sahoo, P.K., Behera, D.:
Application of nanoparticles for biogas production: current status
and perspectives. Energy sources, part A recover. Util. Environ.
Eff. 0, 1–13 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15567​036.​2020.​
17677​30
2793
179. Ganzoury, M.A., Allam, N.K.: Impact of nanotechnology on
biogas production: a mini-review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
50, 1392–1404 (2015). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.r​ ser.2​ 015.0​ 5.0​ 73
180. Ajay, C.M., Mohan, S., Dinesha, P., Rosen, M.A.: Review of
impact of nanoparticle additives on anaerobic digestion and
methane generation. Fuel 277, 118234 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2020.​118234
181. Zaidi, A.A., RuiZhe, F., Shi, Y., Khan, S.Z., Mushtaq, K.: Nano-
particles augmentation on biogas yield from microalgal biomass
anaerobic digestion. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 43, 14202–14213
(2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhyd​ene.​2018.​05.​132
182. Zaidi, A.A., Khan, S.Z., Shi, Y.: Optimization of nickel nano-
particles concentration for biogas enhancement from green algae
anaerobic digestion. Mater. Today Proc. 39, 1025–1028 (2019).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​2020.​04.​762
183. Shi, Y., Huang, K., Feng, R., Wang, R., Liu, G., Zaidi, A.A.,
Zhang, K.: Combined MgO nanoparticle and microwave pre-
treatment on biogas increase from enteromorpha during anaero-
bic digestion. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. (2020). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​450/1/​012025
184. Zaidi, A.A., RuiZhe, F., Malik, A., Khan, S.Z., Bhutta, A.J.,
Shi, Y., Mushtaq, K.: Conjoint effect of microwave irradiation
and metal nanoparticles on biogas augmentation from anaerobic
digestion of green algae. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 44, 14661–14670
(2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhyd​ene.​2019.​02.​245
185. Zaidi, A.A., Khan, S.Z., Almohamadi, H., Mahmoud, E.R.I.,
Naseer, M.N.: Nanoparticles synergistic effect with various sub-
strate pretreatment and their comparison on biogas production
from algae waste. Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. 16, 374–382
(2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​9767/​bcrec.​16.2.​10637.​374-​382
186. Milledge, J.J., Nielsen, B.V., Maneein, S., Harvey, P.J.: A brief
review of anaerobic digestion of algae for bioenergy. Energies
12, 1166 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en120​61166
187. Desrochers, A., Cox, S.-A., Oxenford, H.A., van Tussenbroek,
B.: Sargassum Uses Guide: A Resource for Caribbean Research-
ers, Entrepreneurs and Policy Makers Lead. Cave Hill Campus,
Barbados (2020)
188. Oxenford, H.A., Cox, S.-A., van Tussenbroek, B.I., Desrochers,
A.: Challenges of turning the Sargassum crisis into gold: cur-
rent constraints and implications for the Caribbean. Phycology
1, 27–48 (2021)
189. Thompson, T.M., Ramin, P., Udugama, I., Young, B.R., Gernaey,
K.V., Baroutian, S.: Techno-economic and environmental impact
assessment of biogas production and fertiliser recovery from
pelagic Sargassum: a biorefinery concept for Barbados. Energy
Convers. Manag. 245, 114605 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
encon​man.​2021.​114605
190. Devault, D.A., Pierre, R., Marfaing, H., Dolique, F., Lopez, P.-J.:
Sargassum contamination and consequences for downstream
uses: a review. J. Appl. Phycol. 33, 567–602 (2021). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10811-​020-​02250-w
191. Chandra, R., Iqbal, H.M.N., Vishal, G., Lee, H.S., Nagra, S.: Algal
biorefinery: a sustainable approach to valorize algal-based bio-
mass towards multiple product recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 278,
346–359 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2019.​01.​104
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13