Energy 78 (2014) 23e39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Design and optimization of artificial cultivation units for algae

production
Soumya Yadala, Selen Cremaschi*
Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, 800 South Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper focuses on finding the optimum design of artificial cultivation units for biomass production
Received 1 November 2013 depending on geographical location and kind of algal species selected for growth. Here, the optimum is
Received in revised form defined as the design that yields the lowest net present sink for the lifetime of the cultivation unit.
1 March 2014
Models are developed for tubular, column, and flat plate photobioreactors by considering diurnal pattern
Accepted 1 June 2014
of sunlight and temperature fluctuations. As part of the case study, algae growth is modeled for 10 years
Available online 26 June 2014
in each cultivation unit using two species and four locations, resulting in twenty-four optimization
problems. Each optimization model is implemented in GAMS 23.6.5 and the solution is obtained using
Keywords:
Algae cultivation
CONOPT (version 3.14W) solver. The results indicate that algae species with higher oil content requires
Photobioreactor design smaller reactor volume to produce the desired amount of biomass. The results also reveal that the
Biodiesel production geographical location with higher incident solar irradiance may not necessarily be the optimal location
Growth optimization for algae culturing because higher irradiance may lead to cell damage, and hence, lower growth rates.
Among the options considered in the case study, the design of tubular photobioreactor for culturing
Phaeodactylum tricornutum at Hyderabad, India yields the minimum net present sink.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Excessive usage of fossil fuels has not only led to depletion of
world reserves but also emission of greenhouse gases [1]. These
concerns have enhanced the interest in developing first generation
biofuels extracted from food crop feedstocks including soy beans,
palm, canola, and rape seeds using conventional technologies [2].
First generation biofuels, however, are limited in their ability to
meet the existing demand for transport fuels besides causing a
tremendous strain on global food markets and endangering hunger
[3]. To accommodate some of these short falls, second generation
biofuels emerged from non-food crop feedstocks including wheat
straw, corn stover, and wood using advanced technologies [4].
These biofuels might still not be abundant enough to replace more
that 20e25% of our total transportation fuels because of concerns
Abbreviations: PBR, photobioreactor; MARR, minimum acceptable rate of
return; DA, dry algae biomass; WIA, water present in algae biomass; WW, waste
water; WRD, water remain in dryer; trans, transesterificator; BD, biodiesel; MeOH,
methanol; gly, glycerol; LBTD, lower bound tube diameter; UBBC, upper bound
biomass concentration; LBCD, lower bound column diameter; LBFPW, lower bound
flat plate width; UBFPL, upper bound flat plate length.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 918 631 3422; fax: þ1 918 631 3268.
E-mail addresses: selen-cremaschi@utulsa.edu, selen.aydogan@gmail.com
(S. Cremaschi).
over competing land use. The major draw backs associated with
first and second generation biofuels are addressed by third gener-
ation biofuels derived from algae [5].
The main advantage of algae is that they create their own food
through photosynthesis by combining light, carbon dioxide, and
water. This food is then stored as carbohydrates and lipids. Majority
of algal species exhibit much higher growth rates and pro-
ductivities than conventional forestry, agricultural crops, and
aquatic plants, which makes it possible to use algae to fulfill the
overall fuel demand while using limited land resources [6] and [7].
Furthermore, algae can be cultivated in saline water on non-arable
land [8]. One of the common uses of algal biomass is to produce
biodiesel because lipid or oil content present in algae may be quite
high, with individual species containing anywhere between 2% and
40% on a dry weight basis [9] and [10]. The most common pro-
duction route for biodiesel includes the following steps: the culti-
vated cells are separated from the growth medium and dried, the
lipid content of the cells is extracted, and subsequently biodiesel is
produced via transesterification reaction. Algae-based biodiesel is
highly biodegradable and contains no sulfur; hence, it is seen as a
clean and more environmentally-friendly fuel source [8]. Consid-
ering these benefits, algae appears to be a viable alternative feed-
stock for producing biodiesel that is capable of meeting the demand
for transportation fuels.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.001
0360-5442/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
24 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39

Nomenclature X mass flow rates of reactant or product entering and

leaving PBR at a location for a species and at certain
times (g h1)
Greek symbols ṁ mass flow rate of products produced in PBR at a
r density of water (g m3) location for a species and at certain times (g h1)
m viscosity of water (g m1 s1) Iavg average irradiance inside the PBR (mE m2 s1)
s surface tension (g s2) Øeq length of the light path from the surface to any point in
w kinematic viscosity of water (m2 s1) the PBR (m)
BC biomass concentration (g m3)
Parameters Treactor reactor temperature ( C)
g acceleration due to gravity (m s2) AS Surface area of the cultivation unit (m2)
Sc solar constant (mE m2 s1) mmax maximum specific growth rate (day1)
Cp specific heat (J g1 C1) m specific growth rate (h1)
EmpA empirical constant for interior and coastal regions PrV volumetric productivity of the PBRs (g m3 h1)
hdryer efficiency of dryer PrVO2 volumetric rate of oxygen generation by
hextractor efficiency of extractor photosynthesis (rate of photosynthesis) (g m3 h1)
htrans efficiency of transesterificator V volume occupied (m3)
Demand biodiesel demand (g y1) Ul velocity of fluid flow in PBR (m h1)
nT number of tube diameters of separation AC Cross sectional area of the cultivation unit (m2)
[O2]out outlet concentration of dissolved oxygen (g m3) Re Reynolds number
[O2]in inlet concentration of dissolved oxygen (g m3) HØ Hydraulic diameter of PBR (m)
Tmax maximum temperature attained at a location in a day PP Power of pump (kW)
( C) f tube diameter (m)
Tmin minimum temperature attained at a location in a day TL length of solar loop of a tubular PBR (m)
( C) A Land area occupied by tubular PBR (m2)
Latitude latitude (degree)
Longitude longitude (degree) Variables related to column PBR
Time zone time zone dC column diameter (m)
EqCost equipment cost of a node at a location ($ m3) ε gas hold up
ElCost electric cost of pump ($ kWh1) Ug superficial gas velocity (m h1)
%s percentage of dry algae present in algae species (%) dB bubble diameter (m)
OC lipid content present in an algae species (dry weight CH height of column PBR (m)
basis)
Ka extinction coefficient of algae biomass (m2 g1) Variables related to flat plate PBR
Ik species dependent constant (mE m2 s1) W width of flat plate (m)
n empirical constant FPH height of flat plate (m)
Ulmax maximum permissible liquid velocity inside the PBR FPL length of flat plate (m)
(m h1) ε gas hold up
sunrise time time of sunrise (h) Ug superficial gas velocity (m h1)
q daily zenith angle at a location (radians) Ub bubble rise velocity (m h1)
It extraterrestrial solar radiation on horizon surface Ra Rayleigh number
(mE m2 s1)
Io incident solar radiation on horizontal surface Subscripts
(mE m2 s1) s species
Tsurr surrounding temperature ( C) l location
Pi process i (P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 represent the series of
Variables processes involved in biodiesel production)
Z objective function ($) c component
O mass flow rates of reactant or product entering or y year
leaving transesterificator or extractor at a location for a d day of the year
species in a year (g y1) t time of the day
N mass flow rates of reactant or products entering or in stream flowing in to unit operation
leaving PBR at a location for a species in a year (g y1) out stream flowing out from unit operation
max maximum
min minimum

Despite their inherent potential as a source of biofuel, algae- for cultivating algae in large scale are open ponds and closed
based applications have scarcely reached industrial scale. The photobioreactors (PBRs) [12]. Open ponds are less efficient when
main reason underlying such a low practical implementation is the compared to PBRs [13] because of the difficulty to control
high costs associated with algae cultivation [11]. Practical methods contamination, temperature fluctuations, and evaporative losses.
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
They are also prone to inefficient mixing and light limitations [12]
and [14]. On the other hand, PBRs offer a contamination free
environment that is appropriate for the growth of sensitive strains.
They allow better control of cultivation conditions which
contribute to the production of strains rich in high value products
[15]. However, PBRs are substantially more expensive compared to
open ponds. They are difficult to scale up, and it is challenging to
control light flux [12]. Design of artificial cultivation units is mainly
influenced by three features: (1) algae strain that will be grown, (2)
geographical location for cultivating the chosen algae strain, and (3)
type of cultivation unit for producing the biomass.
More than 50,000 algal species are estimated to exist [16] and
not all of these species are appropriate for producing biodiesel
because each individual algae species has unique physiological and
growth characteristics. In an earlier study, Aquatic Species Program
of US Department of Energy screened more than 300 micro algal
species on the basis of growth rate, oil content, and nutrient defi-
ciency under different environmental conditions [17]. They
concluded that during nutrient deficiency, rates of oil production
are lower. The possibility of large scale production of algae in open
ponds was investigated by conducting experiments at various lo-
cations, and these studies confirmed the viability of long term,
reliable production of algae. Studies were conducted in laboratory
to select the algae strain for oil production [18]. Thirty micro algal
strains were screened for biomass productivity and lipid content.
One strain with relatively high lipid content was selected to grow in
an outdoor PBR to study the influence of irradiance, nutrient supply
on fatty acid accumulation and to determine its lipid production
rate. The experimental results revealed that micro algal strain
eustigmatophyte has the potential for an annual production of 20
tons of lipid per hectare in Mediterranean climates and of more
than 30 tons of lipid per hectare in sunny tropical areas. Algae
species with high oil content, growth rate, productivity, ability to
survive the shear stress in PBRs, robust, tolerable to a wide range of
temperatures, are desirable to produce biodiesel efficiently [14].
Therefore, it is crucial to select the right algae species, which ulti-
mately may lead to a cost effective production of biodiesel.
The second feature that should be considered is the location of
the PBR. Certain regions of the world are better suited for algae
growth than others [19]. According to the observations of Wogan
[20], southwestern and southern states of United States are good
locations to cultivate algae. Borowitzka [21] argued that selection of
Table 1
Main pros and cons of tubular, column, and flat plate PBRs.
Closed systems Advantages
Tubular PBR 1. Large illumination surface area
2. Suitable for outdoor cultures
3. Good biomass productivities
Column PBR 1. High mass transfer, photosynthetic efficiency,
potential for scalability
2. Reduced photoinhibition and photo-oxidation
3. Low cost, compact, and easy to operate
4. Greater gas hold ups
5. Best exposure to light/dark cycles
6. Least land use
7. Promising for large scale cultivation of algae
Flat plate PBR 1. Large illumination surface area
2. High area to volume ratios
3. Suitable for outdoor cultures
4. High biomass productivities
5. Uniform distribution of light
6. Inexpensive
7. Easy to construct, maintain, and clean up
8. High photosynthetic efficiency
9. Mass production of microalgae
25
reactor type is also influenced by geographical factors such as land
costs and climate at the reactor site, which is correlated with the
available sunlight and temperature at that location. Availability of
sunlight at a location influences cell growth because algae absorb
light to grow [22]. The amount absorbed greatly depends on
biomass concentration. The higher the algae concentration, the less
light is absorbed [22]. Effect of average light intensity on cell con-
centration was examined for micro algal cultivation in PBRs [23]. An
empirical hyperbolic equation, analogous to LamberteBeer type
equation, was proposed where light intensity and algal cell con-
centration are calculated by numerical integration. It was found
that identification of the appropriate shape and size of cultivation
unit for the selected location is critical for attaining optimum ab-
sorption of light by algal biomass. Temperature is another impor-
tant environmental factor that strongly regulates cell growth [24]
and [25]. Influence of temperature on growth of various species of
algae was experimentally examined by several investigators
[24,26e29]. Correlations were proposed to describe the relation-
ship between growth rate and temperature using Arrhenius
equation [30], Van't Hoff equation [25], and Berthelot's equation
[31]. Studies show that algal growth rates increase as temperature
increases up to an optimal temperature, beyond which they
decrease [32] and [33]. It was also found that different algal species
respond differently to temperature changes because of differences
in cell sizes [34] and [35], concentration of photosynthetic pig-
ments within the cells [35], and tolerance levels. Hence, the
geographic location of the cultivation unit plays a vital role in its
design.
The third important aspect that influences the design of culti-
vation units is the type of PBR chosen for cultivation. Variety of PBR
designs have been proposed and tested with the three main cate-
gories for large scale cultivation of algae being tubular/horizontal,
column/vertical, and flat plate/rectangular PBRs [36]. The pros and
cons of different reactor types are summarized in Table 1 [37]. The
algae cultivation unit must be designed to utilize maximum
amount of light (sunlight if placed outside e which is the consid-
ered approach in the current work) for growth, minimizing pho-
toinhibition and photolimitation affects. In a PBR, light intensity
decreases exponentially with distance from the illuminated surface
[22]. Due to this effect, the algae cells near the illuminated surface
of the reactor are exposed to high light intensities. Prolonged
exposure to such high light intensities may cause cell death leading
Disadvantages
1. Requires large land space
2. Photoinhibition is common
3. Poor mass transfer
1. Small illumination area
2. Low surface to volume ratio
3. Expensive compared to open ponds
1. Difficult to scale-up
2. Algae adheres to walls
3. Low photosynthetic efficiency
26 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
to photoinhibition [38]. The algae cells away from the illuminated
surface receive less light due to mutual shading which leads to
lower growth rates. This phenomena is called photolimitation [39]
and [40]. Hence, the design of PBRs should consider all these effects
and enable effective utilization of sunlight by algae. In general, it
has been suggested that effective mixing in the reactor and
increasing the illumination surface area to volume ratio of the
reactor leads to better sunlight utilization [13] and [41].
Many PBR models and designs have been proposed and/or
tested in literature, e.g. [42e47]. For example, Chisti, Fernandez
and Grima [36] designed an airlift tubular PBR with continuous
run solar loops to grow Phaeodactylum tricornutum at Almeria,
Spain. They studied the effects of culture productivity on the
observed solar irradiance, mixing, O2 accumulation, O2 removal,
and flow velocity through solar loop, and recommended a reactor
with a capacity of 0.2 m3 which yielded 1.2 g l1 d1 of dry algae.
They recommended the tubes be less than 0.1 m in diameter and
80 m long. Fernandez and Grima [48] developed a macro model
to estimate the year-long Phaeodactylum tricornutum pro-
ductivities in two outdoor tubular PBRs, located in Almeria,
Spain. The inputs to the model were the day of the year, the
reactor geometry (diameter), the kinetic parameters of the algae
strain, and the biomass concentration, which was measured
throughout the experiments. The temperature was maintained
around 20  C using heat exchangers. Solar irradiance inside the
water, where tubes were immersed, was measured using quan-
tum light meter. Daily solar irradiance on the earth's surface was
estimated using equations from literature [49]. They reported
that the biomass productivities ranged from 1.08 to 2.76 g l1 d1
for tube diameters of 0.06 m and 0.03 m, respectively. Also,
Fernandez and Grima [50] completed a comparative analysis of
the concentration and productivity of Haematococcus pluvialis in
tubular and bubble column PBRs to determine the best reactor
for outdoor mass cultivation. According to their results, tubular
PBRs were preferable compared to bubble columns. The mean
daily irradiance on tubular PBR was 2.5 times higher than in
bubble column. The biomass concentration and overall produc-
tivity in tubular PBR were 7 g l1 (dry weight) and 0.55 g l1 d1,
as opposed to 0.41 g l1 and 0.12 g l1 d1 in bubble column.
Chisti and Grima [47] used engineering analysis and experi-
mental observations to evaluate vertical bubble column and
horizontal tubular PBRs for large scale outdoor cultivation of
Phaeodactylum tricornutum. They compared performance of the
two PBRs in terms of the observed gaseliquid hydrodynamics,
mass transfer, internal irradiance, and overall productivity. Their
results revealed that vertical bubble columns perform better than
horizontal loops, and that bubble columns and airlift vessels
appear to be the only ones that can be used effectively in large-
scale cultivation of microalgae. They concluded that the optimal
dimensions of vertical bubble column PBRs are about 0.2 m in
diameter and 4 m in column height with a spacing of about
3.5 m. Merchuk [51] simulated the growth of Porphyridium sp. in
bubble-column PBRs. The proposed model integrated the kinetics
of photosynthesis and photoinhibition with the fluid dynamics of
bubble column. The model's predictions were in agreement with
the experimental results from laboratory. The results indicated
that high biomass concentrations are achieved at low column
diameters, and that areal productivity increases with increasing
diameter up to a point and then decreases. A mathematical
model was developed by Bosma, Zessen, Reith, Tramper and
Wijffels [52] to predict the volumetric productivity of Monodus
Subterraneus cultivated in an outdoor pilot-plant bubble column
located in Netherlands. Two models, one with no light integra-
tion and one with full light integration, were evaluated at
different natural light conditions and different temperatures. The
results showed that the model with no light integration under-
estimated the productivity, while the model with full light
integration over-estimated it. Characterization of flat plate pho-
tobioreactor such as orientation, hydrodynamics, heat and mass
transfer, and mixing for the production of microalgae was pre-
sented by Sierra [53]. It was concluded that productivity is
dependent on location and orientation of the PBR, and compared
to tubular and column PBRs, flat plate PBRs require lower power
supply to achieve similar mass transfer, mixing, and heat trans-
fer. Meiser [54] investigated the biomass productivity of
Phaeodactylum tricornutum in flat panel airlift loop reactor. The
influence of carbon dioxide aeration rates and irradiance on
biomass productivity was studied. Productivity increased by
higher aeration rates and higher light intensities. Slegers [55]
developed a model to predict biomass production in single and
parallel placed flat plate PBRs. The effect of sunlight on produc-
tivity was studied, and the results indicate that productivity
varies between locations, reactor layout, algae species, and
varying light intensities over the day and the year. It was
concluded that vertical and east-west oriented single panels
produce the most amount of biomass.
As per available literature, physical parameters considered in
designing the outdoor cultivation units are temperature, solar irra-
diance, area to volume ratio, oxygen build up, carbon dioxide uptake
efficiency, mass transfer, mixing, pH, and nutrient supply [7]. The
impact of reactor geometry (e.g. reactor diameter), operation (e.g.
average velocity, mixing), and temperature fluctuations on produc-
tivity are not fully understood. Most of the literature focuses on
designing pilot scale PBRs by considering the impact of one or a few
physical parameters on algae growth at one time. In order to replicate
the actual behavior of outdoor PBR, it is necessary to understand the
relationship between all the physical parameters. Therefore, there is a
critical need for a model that considers all physical parameters, and
the resulting analysis that investigates the impact of each parameter
over the rest. Such an examination would not only generate an
optimal PBR design but also help in understanding which physical
parameter(s) have major influence(s) on the biomass productivity,
growth rate, and hence the economics of the PBR. Furthermore, se-
lection of an optimal PBR design to suit the particular characteristics
of micro algal strain and geographical location is important for cost
effective production of biomass because a cultivation unit suitable for
one type of algae species at a location, may not necessarily be optimal
for another species at the same or different location.
The present work was undertaken with an objective to
analyze the influence of algae species, geographical location, and
reactor type on biomass productivity, growth rate, and reactor
geometry. It presents a unique approach that combines the
experimentally validated models (growth, temperature, and
irradiance models) available in the open literature for optimally
designing outdoor PBRs. Three main PRB designs, tubular, col-
umn, and flat plate, were considered. The impact of physical
parameters such as solar irradiance, temperature, oxygen build
up, mass transfer, nutrient supply, and mixing on growth of algae
biomass were modeled for each reactor type. Then, the models
were used to determine the optimum reactor geometries for
growing two different algae species (Phaeodactylum tricornutum
and Isochrysis galbana) on four different locations (Tulsa, USA;
Hyderabad, India; Cape Town, South Africa; and Rio-de-Janeiro,
Brazil). The optimum reactor is defined as the one that yields
the minimum total production cost (net present sink) assuming
the algae grown was used to produce a certain amount of bio-
diesel. In Section 2, the design models of the PBRs are explained.
The solution approach is detailed in Section 3. Section 4 illus-
trates the case study. Results are summarized in Section 5, fol-
lowed by conclusions and future work given in Section 6.
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39 27

2. Biodiesel production and PBR design models Based on the above assumptions, the elemental balances of
carbon (Eq. (1)), hydrogen (Eq. (2)), and oxygen (Eq. (3)) written
Fig. 1 presents the steps involved in the production of algae- according to the algal-biomass-growth reaction stoichiometry,
based biodiesel. The first step is the cultivation of suitable algae yield three relationships between the inlet and outlet flow rates
species in a PBR. The cultivated algae at the selected location is then of the algae cultivation unit for each day, d and the time of the
harvested and sent for drying where excess water is removed. Then, day, t.
the lipids are extracted from the dried algae yielding algae oil. This
algae oil is sent to transesterification reactor for biodiesel produc- X CO2 ;in;P1;d;t X DA;out;P1;d;t
¼a cd; ct (1)
tion. Transesterification is a chemical reaction between tri- MWCO2 MWalgae
glycerides and alcohol to produce biodiesel, and glycerol is
produced as byproduct. In the current work, given a biodiesel
X H2 0;in;P1;d;t X DA;out;P1;d;t X WIA;out;P1;d;t
production rate, we performed a material balance separately for 2 ¼e þ2
MWH2 O MWalgae MWH2 O
each step of Fig. 1 to determine the necessary rate of algae growth.
Algae cultivation: In the cultivation unit, the algal biomass X WW;out;P1;d;t
þ2 cd; ct (2)
production via photosynthesis is approximated with MWH2 O

zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{ dry algae zfflffl}|fflffl{ water in algae X CO2 ;in;P1;d;t X H2 O;in;P1;d;t X DA;out;P1;d;t X WIA;out;P1;d;t
aCO2 þ bH2 O þ cP þ gN/Ca He Of Ng Pc þ hH2 O 2 þ ¼f þ
MWCO2 MWH2 O MWalgae MWH2 O
zfflffl}|fflffl{ waste water X O2 ;out;P1;d;t X WW;out;P1;d;t
þiO2 þ jH2 O þ2 þ cd; ct
MWO2 MWH2 O
a moles of carbon dioxide, b moles of water, c moles of phospho- (3)
rous, and g moles of nitrogen enter the cultivation unit to produce 1
In this formulation, X is the mass flow rate (g h ). The first
1 mol of DA (dry algae), h moles of WIA (water in algae), i moles of
subscript of X represents the chemical species: carbon dioxide
oxygen, and j moles of WW (waste water). In the current work, it is
(CO2), water (H2O), DA (dry algae), WIA (water in algae), WW (waste
assumed that nitrogen and phosphorus are supplied in the appro-
water), and oxygen (O2), respectively. The second subscript of X
priate form in excess for algal growth in the growth medium.
denotes whether a stream is an input (in) or an output (out or
As noted in Section 1, the algae growth is a function of available
removed) for a process. The third subscript of X specifies which
light and temperature among other things. If the algae cultivation
process (P) the stream is attached to. Subscripts P1, P2, P3, P4, and
units are built outdoors as envisioned by many (e.g.
P5 refer to the five stages of biodiesel production which are culti-
[23,36,50,52,56e58]), both of these factors change based on the
vation, harvesting and concentration, drying, extraction, and
time of the day, and the day of the year. Therefore, the algae
transesterification, respectively (Fig. 1). The fourth subscript of X
cultivation units operate in a dynamic mode throughout the day,
specifies the day (d) of the operation, and the last subscript cor-
never reaching a steady-state behavior. This dynamic behavior can
responds to the hour (t) of the operation. In Eq. (1) through (3), MW
be captured by differential equations; however repeated solution of
denotes the molecular weight, and its subscript corresponds to the
these differential equations may be computationally expensive.
chemical species. For example, MWCO2 is the molecular weight of
Therefore, the following assumptions were made in order to cap-
carbon dioxide.
ture this dynamic behavior and reduce the computational burden
Given the percentage of dry algae in wet algae biomass for
in this model: (1) Time is discretized using time buckets of equal
species s, %s, Eq. (4) calculates the mass flow rate of water present in
size, mainly hours. (2) All properties are assumed to be constant
algae. The total algae mass is the sum of dry algae and water pre-
within a time bucket, e.g., the algae growth rate within a time
sent in algae.
bucket is fixed. However, it may change from one time bucket to the
next.
X DA;out;P1;d;t
 100 ¼ %s cd; ct (4)
X WIA;out;P1;d;t þ X DA;out;P1;d;t

Mass flow rate of products (dry algae, water in algae and waste
Algae Cultivation
water), ṁout,P1,d,t, in the PBR on day d at time t, is computed via Eq.
(5).

Harvesting & _ out;P1;d;t ¼ XDA;out;P1;d;t þ XWIA;out;P1;d;t

m
Concentration þ XWW;out;P1;d;t cd; ct (5)

Harvesting & Concentration: During this step, algae biomass is

harvested and is separated from excess waste water. In this work, it
Drying is assumed that the process(es) used for concentration step suc-
cessfully removes all growth medium water, i.e., waste water,
collected during the algal biomass harvesting step. Hence, only
wet algae, i.e., dry algae and water present in algae, continue to the
Oil Extraction
next step. Eq. (6) shows the overall mass balance of harvesting and
concentration step.
XDA;in;P2;d;t þ XWIA;in;P2;d;t þ XWW;in;P2;d;t
Transesterification ¼ XDA;out;P2;d;t þ XWIA;out;P2;d;t þ XWW;removed;P2;d;t cd; ct
(6)
Fig. 1. Process flow chart.
28 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39

Drying: In this step, water present in algae is removed from
wet algae with the dryer efficiency, hdryer. Eq. (7) calculates the
outlet mass flow rate of remaining water, XWRD,out,P3,d,t, that leaves,
out, the dryer on day d at time t. Eq. (8) gives the overall material
balance for drying step.
XWRD;out;P3;d;t ¼ XWIA;in;P3;d;t  hdryer cd; ct
2.1. PBR design models
The cultivation units considered in this work are tubular, col-
umn, and flat plate PBRs. The design models relate the rate of algae
growth to the necessary volume for that specific reactor. There are
two sets of design equations: one set is common for the three PBRs
(7) and the other set is specific to each reactor type.

2.1.1. Common design equations

XDA;in;P3;d;t þ XWIA;in;P3;d;t ¼ XDA;out;P3;d;t þ XWRD;out;P3;d;t
þ XWIA;removed;P3;d;t cd; ct
Extraction: In the extractor, lipid is extracted from dry algae
biomass leaving cake as residue. Eq. (9) calculates the flow rate of
lipid using the efficiency of extractor, hextractor, and oil content of
algae species, OCs. Eq. (10) gives the overall mass balance for
extraction step where mass flow rates of dry algae and water
remaining in algae after the dryer step, is equal to mass flow rates of
lipid, Xlipid,out,P4,d,t, and cake, Xcake,out,P4,d,t, leaving, out, the extractor
on day d at time t.
2.1.1.1. Algal production. Eq. (14) calculates volume, V, of the culti-
(8)
vation unit when productivity, PrVd,t, and production, XDA,out,P1,d,t, of
algae biomass are known.
XDA;out;P1;d;t ¼ PrVd;t  V cd; ct (14)
Productivity, PrVd,t, of algae biomass in a PBR on day d at time t is
defined as the reactor's product generation rate (g m3 h1), and
can be calculated as a function of specific growth rate (h1), md,t, and
biomass concentration (g m3), BCd,t, on day d at time t, as shown in
Eq. (15).

Xlipid;out;P4;d;t ¼ XDA;in;P4;d;t  hextractor  OCs cd; ct (9) PrVd;t ¼ md;t  BCd;t cd; ct (15)

In Eq. (16), mass flow rate of waste water, XWW,out,P1,d,t, and mass
XDA;in;P4;d;t þ XWRD;in;P4;d;t ¼Xlipid;out;P4;d;t flow rate of dry algae biomass, XDA,out,P1,d,t, produced in PBR are used
(10)
þ Xcake;out;P4;d;t cd; ct to calculate the concentration of dry algae biomass in water, BCd,t.
" #
Transesterification reactor: The biodiesel transesterification re- XDA;out;P1;d;t
action is defined as [59]: BCd;t ¼ r cd; ct (16)
XWW;out;P1;d;t

catalyst In Eq. (16), r is the density of water.

Lipid þ 3ðMethanolÞ5Glycerol þ 3ðBiodieselÞ
All lipid (assumed to be all triglyceride in this article) leaving the 2.1.1.2. Temperature and light dependence of algae growth rate.
extractor, enters the transesterification reaction where it reacts The maximum specific growth rates, mmax, of algae species depend
with methanol in the presence of catalyst to produce glycerol and on the temperature and the species itself [62]. One approach to
biodiesel. model this relationship has a form inspired by the Arrhenius
The rate of biodiesel production on each day, d, and time, t, equation: mmax ¼ a:expðb:TÞ where a and b are species dependent
XBD,out,P5,d,t, can be calculated using the transesterification reaction constants, and T is temperature. Response of growth rate to changes
stoichiometry, and the efficiency of transesterification reactor, in temperature was modeled in Ref. [63], for eight species of marine
htrans, and is given in Eq. (11). phytoplankton, where maximum growth rate tends to increase
with temperature and also varies with species [62]. Eq. (17) shows
XBD;out;P5;d;t Xlipid;in;P5;d;t the empirical relationship between the maximum specific growth
¼  htrans  3 cd; ct (11)
MWBD MWlipid rate, mmaxd;t , and temperature inside the PBR, Treactord;t , on day d at
time t.
where,
bTreactord;t
mmaxd;t ¼ a  e cd; ct (17)
MWBD: Molecular weight of biodiesel [60]
MWlipid: Molecular weight of lipid [61] The temperature inside the PBR (K), Treactord;t , can be estimated
by a simple energy balance around the reactor at each time bucket.
The necessary mass flow rate of methanol, XMeOH,in,P5,d,t, and the Assuming that the energy stored in the walls of the PBR is negligible
production rate of glycerol, Xgly,out,P5,d,t, on day d at time t can be compared to the energy stored by algae growth medium, and the
calculated similar to rate of biodiesel production, and these re- temperature in the PBR was initially equal to the surrounding
lationships are given in Eq. (12) for methanol and Eq. (13) for temperature, Eq. (18) describes the relationship between the
glycerol. average solar irradiance inside the culture (mE m2 h1), Iavgd;t , and
the reactor temperature on day d at time t.
X MeOH;in;P5;d;t Xlipid;in;P5;d;t  
¼ 3 cd; ct (12) _ out;P1;d;t  Cp  Treactord;t  Tsurrd;t cd; ct
Iavgd;t  Ephoton  As ¼ m
MWmeth MWlipid
(18)

Xgly;out;P5;d;t Xlipid;in;P5;d;t where,

¼  htrans cd; ct (13)
MWgly MWlipid Ephoton: Photon energy
Cp: Specific heat of water (J g1 C1)
where, Tsurrd;t : Surrounding air temperature
MWMeOH: Molecular weight of methanol. As: Surface area of the cultivation unit (it is the area of the
MWgly: Molecular weight of glycerol. reactor that is exposed to sunlight)
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
Algal growth is also a function of the available light. Eq. (19) is
called light-limited growth equation which was developed and
tested by Grima, Camacho, Pe rez, Sevilla, Ferna
ndez, and Go mez
[64]. It models the effect of light attenuation on the observed algae
growth rate in the cultivation unit. It defines a hyperbolic rela-
tionship between the specific algae growth rate and average solar
irradiance inside the culture when algae species and its light ab-
sorption coefficient (mE m2 s1), Ik, are known. Based on the study,
material balance performed in a chemostat where specific growth
rate is expressed as a function of irradiance, it was observed that
the algae growth rate predictions of this model exhibit a good
agreement with the measured ones.
" n
# d;t
Iavg
md;t ¼ mmaxd;t  d;t
cd; ct
Ikn þ Iavg
n
d;t
where,
n: Exponent that describes the abruptness of the transition from
weekly-illuminated to strongly-illuminated regions.
In a PBR, light intensity is attenuated because of biomass con-
centration [23], light absorption, and mutual-shading [36]. The algae
cells closer to light source receive higher irradiance than cells further
away. These effects are modeled in Eq. (20) which was developed by
Fernandez, Camacho, Pe rez, Sevilla, and Grima [23], who proposed
an empirical relationship between light attenuation and biomass
concentration. They verified the model's accuracy using several
types of freshwater microalga, Phaeodactylum tricornutum. This
model was later validated for different algae species and PBR ge-
ometries in Ref. [57]. Their results indicate that horizontal tubular
PBR provide better light distribution than other conventional PBRs.
Eq. (20) estimates the average solar irradiance, Iavgd;t , experienced by
a single cell moving inside the culture based on the position of the
sun relative to the PBR and Beer-Lambert relationship [65]. The light
absorption coefficient, Ka, varies with algae species.
"  #
Io d;t  4eq KaBCd;t
Iavgd;t ¼ 1e d;t
cd; ct
4eqd;t  Ka  BCd;t
In Eq. (20), 4eqd;t is the length of light path from reactor surface
to any point inside the culture on day d at time t, and it is calculated
by Eqs. (21) and (22) depending on the orientation of PBR relative to
the position of the sun [23]. In these equations, the position of sun
is defined by the solar zenith angle, q, the angle of declination of
sun from the vertical. For horizontal orientation of PBR, the higher
the sun's position from earth's surface, the smaller the length of
light path. For vertical orientation of PBR, the higher the sun's po-
sition from earth's surface, the greater the length of light path. This
phenomenon is displayed in Fig. 2.
" #
Design
4eqd;t ¼ for Horizontal PBR cd; ct
cos qd;t
" #
Design
4eqd;t ¼ for Vertical PBR cd; ct
sin qd;t
Here, Design is the relevant design parameter of the PBR such as
diameter in case of circular geometry and thickness in case of non-
circular geometry.
Concentration of algae biomass should be kept below a pre-
determined value, firstly, to inhibit light attenuation because when
light passes through dense cultures, it would decay along the depth,
and secondly, to maintain the Newtonian behavior of the growth
29
medium while keeping the fluid properties similar to that of water
[66]. This upper bound on biomass concentration (UBBC) is added
to the model in Eq. (23).
BCd;t  UBBC cd; ct (23)
2.1.1.3. Maximum dissolved oxygen concentration in PBR. It is shown
that high levels of dissolved oxygen inhibit photosynthesis [67] and
become toxic to most microalgae [16]. Eq. (24) ensures that, the
level of dissolved oxygen in the PBR stays below the acceptable
limit throughout the operation of the PBR. Given the maximum
permissible liquid velocity, Ulmax, rate of photosynthesis
(g m3 h1), PrVO2 , on day d at time t, and the acceptable limit of
the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the reactor, Eq. (24) places
(19) an upper bound on the relevant design parameter of the PBR
(Design), which is the diameter in case of circular geometry and
thickness in case of non-circular geometry.
 
Ulmax  ½O2 out  ½O2 in
Design  cd; ct (24)
PrVO2
d;t
Here, Ulmax is 0.5 ms-1 and is taken from literature [36]. [O2]in is
the dissolved oxygen concentration at the entrance of the reactor
taken to be 8.2 mg l1, which is the saturation value when water is
in equilibrium with atmosphere. [O2]out is the exit dissolved oxygen
concentration that does not inhibit photosynthesis. In literature, it
has been stated that this value should not generally exceed about
400% of air saturation value [13], and in this study, it is taken as
32.8 mg l1. Rate of photosynthesis, PrVO2 , is estimated from the
d;t
amount of oxygen, XO2,out,P1,d,t, produced in cultivation unit and
reactor volume, V as shown in Eq. (25).
XO2 ;out;P1;d;t
PrVO2 ¼ cd; ct (25)
d;t V
Reynolds number of the fluid flow inside the PBR is calculated by
Eq. (26).
 
H∅  Uld;t  r
Red;t ¼ cd; ct (26)
(20) m
where,
HØ: Hydraulic diameter of PBR and is calculated depending on
the type of the cultivation unit used m: Viscosity of the fluid.
Eq. (27) calculates the liquid velocity, Uld,t, in the PBR on day d at
time t when cross sectional area, Ac, of the cultivation unit is
known.
_ out;P1;d;t
m
Uld;t ¼ cd; ct (27)
r  Ac
2.1.1.4. Pumping costs. Pumps not only help in creating mixing ef-
fect but also help in transporting the fluid from the inlet to the
(21) outlet of the PBR. Good mixing circulates algal cells between light
and dark regions of PBRs, avoids cell attachment to reactor walls,
reduces the degree of mutual shading, and lowers the probability of
photoinhibition [68]. Pumping costs may play a significant role in
(22) PBR design especially as the diameter of the reactor becomes
smaller. Power, PPd,t, required for pumping the fluid throughout the
PBR is calculated with Eqs. (28) and (29), for horizontal-orientation
PBRs and vertical-orientation PBRs, respectively. Eq. (28) takes into
account the pressure losses due to friction. Here, friction factor is
computed using Haaland equation for circular and noncircular
smooth pipes [69], where Design is the relevant design parameter of
the PBR (diameter in case of circular geometry and thickness in case
of non-circular geometry) in whose direction frictional loss occurs.
30 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39

∅  LBTD (32)

where,
LBTD: Lower bound on tube diameter.

2.1.2.2. Column PBR. Eq. (33) calculates the volume occupied by the
bubble column PBR, V.

p
V¼  dC 2  CH (33)
4

where,
dC: Diameter of column PBR
CH: Height of column PBR.
Gas hold up, which is defined as the percentage of gas in a
multiphase mixture, is considered to be one of the most important
Fig. 2. Zenith angle and length of light path for horizontal and vertical oriented PBRs.
parameters of column PBR design because it characterizes the hy-
drodynamics within the bubble column. Gas hold up, εd,t, of column
PBR on day d at time t mainly depends on superficial gas velocity,
Ugd,t, of the fluid flow on day d at time t, column diameter, gravity,
Eq. (29) takes into account both the pressure losses due to friction
and fluid properties such as density, surface tension, and viscosity.
and gravitational affects. The first component of the summation in
The effect of superficial gas velocity on gas hold up was experi-
Eq. (29) calculates the pressure drop due to gravitational affects
mentally examined in Ref. [71], and the best correlation for pre-
where g is acceleration due to gravity, and Design is the relevant
dicting the gas hold up within liquidegas columns was found to be
design parameter of the PBR in whose direction gravitational loss
Eq. (34) and Eq. (35). Their experimental data suggested that the
occurs. The second component calculates the pressure drop due to
total gas hold up increase with increasing superficial gas velocities.
friction similar to Eq. (28).
" #   "Ul2 # 0:449
εd;t ¼ 1:335  Ugd;t cd; ct (34)
6:9 Design d;t
_ out;P1;d;t   1:8 log
PPd;t ¼ m   cd;ct
Red;t H∅ 2
0:13 0:11
g  dC 2  r g  dC 3  r2
(28) εd;t ¼ 0:20
s m2
!0:54
_ out;P1;d;t  g  Design
PPd;t ¼ m Ugd;t
( " # pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cd; ct (35)
6:9 g  dC
þ _ out;P1;d;t   1:8 log
m
Red;t (29)
where,
  "Ul2 # )
Design d;t g: Acceleration due to gravity s: Surface tension of water inside
  cd; ct
H∅ 2 the PBR
m: Viscosity of water inside the PBR
Another important parameter that greatly influences the hy-
drodynamics with the column PBR is bubble diameter. Bubble size
2.1.2. Reactor-type specific model equations is controlled by the balance between coalescence and breakup
forces. The magnitudes of these forces depend on superficial gas
2.1.2.1. Tubular PBR. Volume of tubular PBR, V, is computed velocity and liquid physiological properties [72]. Hence, bubble
assuming that the tubular PBR is a perfect cylinder, viz. Eq. (30). diameter, dBd,t, on day d at time t is affected by column diameter,
p acceleration due to gravity, superficial gas velocity, and liquid
V¼  ∅2  TL (30) properties such as density, surface tension, kinematic viscosity.
4
Dimensionless correlation for the estimation of bubble size as a
where, function of gas velocity and liquid physiological properties was
Ø: Diameter of tubes in a tubular PBR. proposed in Ref. [72] based on experimental data using photo-
TL: Length of tube. graphic technique. Their correlation agreed within 20% of the
Eq. (31) calculates land area occupied by the tubular reactor, A, previously published data of Towell [73].
when volume is known. Separation between the tubes of the
0:5 0:12
reactor is expressed as a function of tube diameter, dC 2  g  r g  dC 3
dBd;t ¼ 26  dC
separation ¼ nT *∅, where nT is obtained from literature [70]. s w 2

separation  V !0:12
A¼ (31) Ugd;t
Ac pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cd; ct (36)
g  dC
For tubular PBRs, high surface to volume ratio ensures high
growth rates and productivities [22]. In order to obtain high surface
to volume ratio, tube diameter, Ø, should be kept as low as possible. Lastly, to obtain uniform distribution of light and to ensure
However, pumping the culture medium at such low diameters heterogeneous bubble flow inside the column, diameter, dC, should
become expensive. Hence, a realistic lower bound on diameter is be kept above a realistic lower bound [47] and [74] as shown in Eq.
added to the model via Eq. (32). (37).
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39 31

dC  LBCD (37) 2.2. Air temperature and irradiance models

where, As explained in Section 2.1.1.2, the outdoor cultivation of algae is

LBCD: Lower bound on column diameter. effected by the available sunlight (Eq. (19)) and the temperature
(Eq. (17)), which depend on the location of the PBR. The governing
equations to estimate the surrounding temperature, Tsurrd;t , and
2.1.2.3. Flat plate PBR. Eq. (38) allows calculating the volume, V, incident light availability, Iod;t , on day d at time t are explained in the
occupied by the flat plate PBR. following sections.
V ¼ FPH  W  FPL (38)
2.2.1. Surrounding temperature equations
where, Temperature simulation model presented in Ref. [77], and given
W: Width of flat plate PBR in Eqs. (46)e(48), is used to calculate the surrounding temperature,
FPL: Diameter of flat plate PBR FPH: Height of flat plate PBR. Tsurrd;t , on day d at time t on earth surface. This model is validated by
Flat plate bioreactor is similar to a rectangular bubble column Berninger [78] in his study by comparing the simulated data and
PBR. Hence, the design of flat plate PBR utilizes similar correlations the instantaneous measured data on a sample day for a period of 45
used for gas hold up and bubble diameter. Gas hold up is calculated days. The results indicated that the model was a good fit to the
using Eqs. (39) and (40) where Ubd,t is bubble rise velocity of the instantaneous temperature measurements. The model assumes
fluid flow on day d at time t [26]. In heterogeneous flow regime, the that minimum temperature, Tmind , occurs at the time of sunrise and
larger the bubble size, the higher the bubble rise velocity and the maximum temperature, Tmaxd , at 14:00 h Eq. (46) calculates the
lower the gas hold up. surrounding temperature before the time of sunrise, sunriseTimed.
Eq. (47) calculates the surrounding temperature between sunrise
0:449
εd;t ¼ 1:335  Ugd;t cd; ct (39) time and time when maximum temperature occurs, i.e., 14:00 h Eq.
(48) calculates the surrounding temperature after the time when
maximum temperature occurs.
Ugd;t
εd;t ¼ cd; ct (40)
Ubd;t Tmaxd þ Tmind Tmaxd  Tmind
Tsurrd;t ; ¼ þ
Bubble diameter, dBd,t, on day d at time t is estimated by means 2 2 
180  ðt þ 10Þ
of Sauter mean bubble diameter as shown in Eq. (41). Correlation of  cos c t if t < sunriseTimed ; cd
10 þ sunriseTimed
bubble diameter to the liquid physiological properties (such as
density, viscosity, surface tension), and superficial gas velocity was (46)
developed in Ref. [75] based on twenty numerical experiments
conducted on three virtual liquids. They concluded that the pre- Tmaxd þ Tmind Tmaxd  Tmind
Tsurrd;t ; ¼ 
dictions of their correlation were in good agreement with experi- 2 2 
mental bubble diameters observed in the laboratory settings. 180  ðt  sunriseTimed Þ (47)
 cos
14  sunriseTimed
dBd;t ¼ 0:289  r0:552  m0:048  s0:442  Ugd;t
0:124
cd; ct ct if sunriseTimed  t  14 h; cd
(41)
Unlike column and tubular PBRs, better mixing inside a vertical Tmaxd þ Tmind Tmaxd  Tmind
Tsurrd;t ; ¼ þ
flat plate PBR, is achieved at very high Rayleigh numbers (the ratio of 2 2
 
buoyancy and viscous forces [76]). To ensure that the flat plate PBR 180  ðt  14Þ
 cos ct if t > 14 h; cd
operates at right Rayleigh number, Rad,t, ranges, Eq. (42) is used. 10 þ sunriseTimed
(48)
105  Rad;t  109 (42)
2.2.2. Incident light equations
Eq. (43) calculates Rayleigh number in rectangular bubble col-
Light intensity is a function of the time of the day, the day of the
umn PBR as a function of bubble properties such as bubble diam-
year, and the location on the earth surface. In order to find the
eter and bubble rise velocity.
availability of sunlight at a location, extraterrestrial solar radiation,
g  r  Ugd;t  dB3d;t Itd;t , on day d at time t on the earth's surface is calculated based on
Rad;t ¼ cd; ct (43) the position of sun, q, using Eq. (49) [79]. This model has been
m  W  Ub2d;t developed and validated by Maxwell [80] to estimate the hourly
profile of irradiance. It is widely accepted and considered to be
Width of flat plate PBR, W, should be maintained at a lower
relatively “universal”. The model was validated using data from
value to acquire good surface to volume ratio without considerably
three locations at widely varying latitudes with significantly
increasing the pumping costs as shown in Eq. (44). Length of flat
different climates and comparing these measurements with exist-
plate PBR, FPL, is also constrained to avoid high levels of dissolved
ing models. Their results show that their model performs better
oxygen concentrations as shown in Eq. (45).
without compensating for seasonal, climatic, or geographic
W  LBFPW (44) differences.

Itd;t ¼ Sc  cos qd;t cd; ct (49)

FPL  UBFPL (45)
2
Here, Sc is solar constant and is equal to 1370 W m . Zenith
where, angle, qd,t, can be calculated when latitude, longitude, and time
LBFPW: Lower bound on width of flat plate. zone of the location are known. It should be noted that, in this
UBFPL: Upper bound on length of flat plate. model, solar radiations at a given location are calculated between
32 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
sunrise time and sunset time, i.e., when cosine of zenith angle is
positive. Hence, algae biomass production is modeled only during
the day.
The global solar radiation, Iod;t , on day d at time t can be esti-
mated as a function of the daily maximum temperature, Tmaxd ,
minimum temperature, Tmind , and the extraterrestrial solar radia-
tion viz. Eq. (50), based on the empirical correlation presented by
Hargreaves [81]. The empirical model was developed using avail-
able meteorological observations.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Iod;t ¼ EmpA  Tmaxd  Tmind  Itd;t cd; ct
where,
EmpA: empirical coefficient which is 0.19 for coastal regions and
0.16 for interior regions [82].
It should be noted that, all parameters in Eq. (46)e(50), i.e.,
Tmind , Tmaxd , sunriseTimed, Itd;t , qd,t, and Iod;t , are location dependent.
Sunrise time and cosine of solar zenith angle both depend on the
latitude, longitude, and time zone. They are calculated using the
model developed by NOAA called NOAA Solar Calculator [83]. These
equations are provided as supplementary material for this article.
The temperature and irradiance models employed in this article
assume no cloud cover. Therefore, the algae growth rates and
productivities obtained using the model presented in this article is
a theoretical upper bound for the actual growth rates and pro-
ductivities that can be expected with the suggested PBR designs.
3. Solution approach
Given an algae species and a location, the tubular PBR can be
designed using common design equations: Eq. (1)e(29) and Eq.
(46)e(50), and reactor specific design equations: Eq. (30)e(32),
making a total of 91,032 equations and 94,361 variables. It yields
3329 degrees of freedom. The column PBR can be designed using
common design equations: Eq. (1)e(29) and Eq. (46)e(50), and
reactor specific design equations: Eq. (33)e(37), making a total of
96,661 equations and 97,690 variables, which yields 1029 degrees
of freedom. Similarly, flat plate PBR can be designed using common
design equations: Eq. (1)e(29) and Eq. (46)e(50), and reactor
specific design equations: Eq. (38)e(45). There are 114,053 equa-
tions and 126,169 variables which lead to 12,116 degrees of
freedom. In order to obtain a unique solution to these models, the
values of the degrees of freedom should be specified. One approach
to specify these variables is optimization (the approach used in this
paper), in which the extra degrees of freedom can be used to ach-
ieve a specific objective. In this study, we set the objective as the
minimization of the net present sink of biomass production for a
plant life of 10 years. This cost is calculated in Eq. (51). First part of
the summation in Eq. (51) calculates the equipment costs of culti-
vation unit (PBR) where EqCostl represents the cost of PBR ($ m3)
with unit capacity. This calculation assumes that the cost of the PBR
changes linearly with its volume. Second part calculates the oper-
ating costs of the cultivation unit for continuous mixing and
pumping large volumes of algae biomass and growth medium. Cost
of operating the pumps is calculated assuming a depreciation of
10% using MARR (Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return).
! Modeling System (GAMS 23.6.5) using CONOPT (version 3.14W) as
X10 1 solver. Here, it should be noted that the CONOPT is a local solver,
ZZ ¼ EqCostl  V þ  Elcostl  EP
t¼0 ð1 þ MARRÞt
1
Here, ElCostl represents the cost of electricity ($ kWh ) used for
pumping algae biomass and EP represents the annual energy re-
quirements of the pump and is calculated by Eq. (52).
XX
EP ¼ PPd;t  30 (52)
d t
Other utilities such as water and macronutrient (N and P) are
assumed to be supplied in abundant, and the macronutrient cost is
negligible compared to pumping costs.
The time discretization, which is necessary to capture the
dynamic nature of algae growth, results in 8640 time buckets
(24 h  360 days e assuming a 360 day operation period) in a
year. Hence, equation sets (1) through (50) result in a total of
100,582 equations and 106,073 variables on an average for the
(50) three reactor types. Given the exponential increase of number of
equations and variables with the number of time buckets, the
solution of the resulting nonlinear optimization problem (i.e.,
nonlinear program) requires considerable computational re-
sources. In order to reduce the computational burden and to
make the resulting optimization problem tractable, the following
simplification approach is adapted in this paper: It is assumed
that the climate and available light (which are the main sources of
dynamics of algal growth in the model) within each month of a
year can be approximated by one specific day of each month. This
reduces the number of days from 360 to 12. During that selected
day, all dynamic variables are calculated using the hourly time-
bucket approach. The variables obtained for that one specific
day of each month are replicated for all other days in that month.
This reduces the number of equations and variables to approxi-
mately 3350 and 3535, respectively. Eq. (53)e(55) give the total
monthly and yearly mass flow rates obtained using the above
approximation.
In Eq. (53), daily mass flow rate of component, c, produced, out,
in PBR, on day d at time t. Nc,out,P1,d is computed from Xc,out,P1,d,t.
X
Nc;out;P1;d ¼ Xc;out;P1;d;t
t
cd2f1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12g; cc2fDA; WIAg
(53)
The yearly mass flow rate, Oc,out,P1,y, is calculated using Eq. (54).
X
12
Oc;out;P1;y ¼ 30  Nc;out;P1;d cy; cc2fDA; WIAg (54)
d¼1
where,
Nc,out,P1,d: Mass flow rate of component, c, produced, out, in PBR
on day d.
Eq. (55) ensures that the total biodiesel produced by the
transesterification reaction in a year, y, satisfies the demand.
OBD;out;P5;y ¼ Demand cy (55)
Eq. (1)e(32) and Eq. (46)e(55) form a Nonlinear Programming
(NLP) formulations representing the tubular PBRs. Similarly, Eq.
(1)e(29), Eq. (33)e(37), and Eq. (46)e(55) represent model
formulation for column PBR and Eq. (1)e(29), Eq. (38)e(45), and
Eq. (46)e(55) represent model formulation for flat plate PBR. These
models are implemented and solved in the General Algebraic
and, hence, yields a local minimum solution of a non-convex
optimization problems like the models we present in this paper.
(51)
One approach to overcome the shortcoming of using a local opti-
mizer is to solve the problem starting from different initialization
points. In this paper, the NLPs were solved 1000 times with
different initializations. The initial guesses were generated by Latin
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
hypercube sampling technique. The best of the 1000 solutions are
presented in Section 5.
4. Case study
In the case study, the influence of two marine-water species
(Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Isochrysis galbana) and four
geographical locations (Tulsa, USA; Hyderabad, India; Cape
Town, South Africa; and Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil) on the design of
PBRs was investigated. The necessary parameters for the model
described in Section 2 are lipid content (OCs), light absorption
coefficient (Ka), percentage of dry algae present in algae biomass
(%s), species dependent constant (Ik), latitude, longitude, and
time zone. The relevant data for the two marine-water species
considered in the case study are listed in Table A1. The species
specific constants a and b shown in Eq. (17) are estimated by
nonlinear regression analysis on experimental data given in Ref.
[84] where eight species of marine phytoplankton were grown at
different temperatures ranging from 10 to 25  C. Fig. A1 shows
the graphical representation of our regression analysis for
Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Isochrysis galbana species.
Figure shows that maximum specific growth rate is exponen-
tially dependent on reactor temperature. The four locations and
their corresponding data are listed in Table A2. Maximum and
minimum temperatures of the selected 12 days (obtained from a
weather website called WeatherSpark [85]) at these locations are
shown in Table A3. The model parameters and cost coefficients
such as equipment costs and electricity costs that are used for
the case studies are summarized in Table A4 and Table A5,
respectively. The biodiesel demand in Eq. (55) is 34,386 g y1
based on [36].
Given the above data, a total of twenty-four case problems
(nonlinear programs e NLPs) were generated for tubular (two
species and four locations), column (two species and four loca-
tions), and flat plate (two species and four locations) PBRs using
the models presented in Section 2. These twenty-four NLPs were
solved separately to determine the best combination of species,
location, and reactor type that produces the desired amount of
biodiesel at the minimum net present sink. This combination is
considered to be the best case. Sensitivity analysis was per-
formed on the best case results to understand the influence of
maximum permissible liquid velocity in the PBR (Ulmax), and
maximum acceptable dissolved oxygen concentration along the
direction of flow ([O2]out), on the production costs. All these
optimization problems were solved for a production period of 10
years.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Comparison of our design and Ferna ndez FG, Ferna
ndez JM,
P
erez, Grima, Chisti [36] tubular PBR design
Here, we compare the tubular PBR design obtained by the
modeling approach presented in our paper to the one presented
in Ref. [36], when the same demand is used. The discussion in
this subsection serves as a verification of our modeling approach
Table 2
Comparison of tubular PBR results.
Design F (m) TL (m) V (m3)
Base Case 0.06 80 0.20
1 0.043 141.75 0.207
2 0.054 29.03 0.066
33
because our overall model uses the algal growth model devel-
oped in Ref. [36], and extends it by considering the diurnal
patterns of temperature and irradiance for the whole year.
The growth model was used to design a 0.2 m3 tubular PBR to
grow algae and to predict the volumetric productivity, liquid
velocity, and biomass concentration of this reactor [36]. The
proposed tubular PBR design was tested for growing
Phaeodactylum tricornutum species at Almeria, Spain. The avail-
able light on culture surface and maximum specific growth rate
used in this design were 820 mE m2 s1 and 0.063 h1, respec-
tively. The authors recommended the tubes be less than 0.1 m in
diameter and 80 m long. The Base Case row in Table 2 gives the
tubular PBR design proposed in Ref. [36] for producing algae at a
rate of 238 g d1 (dry weight basis). The information provided in
the table is the reactor configuration, daily averages of biomass
concentration, growth rate, irradiance inside the reactor, and
volumetric productivity.
Rows Design 1 and Design 2 in Table 2 were obtained by
solving the optimization problem presented in our paper with
the minimum net sink objective for the same species
(Phaeodactylum tricornutum), location (Almeria, Spain), type of PBR
(tubular), and algal production rate (238 g d1 (dry weight basis)).
Design 1 is the solution of the optimization problem if the effect of
temperature on the maximum specific algae growth rate and
available light are ignored, i.e., Eqs. (17) and (18) and (46)e(50) are
removed from our model. The model solved in this case uses the
same light intensity and maximum specific growth rate of the Base
Case. Design 2 is obtained by solving the model for a whole year
rather than a single day for designing a tubular PBR to grow algae at
a rate of 238 g d1 (dry weight basis) in Almeria, Spain. It takes into
account the diurnal pattern of sunlight and temperature during the
year, and the effect of temperature on the maximum specific algae
growth rate and available light (i.e. temperature and light models
are considered).
We can see from Table 2 that the overall reactor volumes of
the Base Case and Design 1 are comparable. The reactor config-
uration suggested in Design 1 yields higher biomass concentra-
tion, and productivity compared to the reactor configuration of
the Base Case. Design 1 requires a smaller diameter to meet the
same biomass production rate, given an objective such as mini-
mum net present sink. Lower diameter leads to higher biomass
concentration and productivity because of more light penetra-
tion. However, growth rate obtained from Design 1 is lower
compared to that of Base Case because of dense cultures and cell
death due to increased light penetration. If the temperature
variations and the available light changes throughout the year
are taken into consideration, i.e. Design 2, a lower reactor volume
(compared to the Base Case) is obtained to meet the same
biomass production rate. The model used to obtain the reactor
configuration of Design 2 calculates the hourly irradiance based
on zenith angle, and maximum and minimum temperatures in a
day. This hourly irradiance is used to estimate the average irra-
diance inside the reactor yielding more accurate average irradi-
ance than the ones used for designing the reactors of the Base
Case and Design 1. Design 2 estimates the change in the tem-
perature of the growth medium throughout the day due to
BC (g m3) m (h1) Iavg (mE m2 s1) PrV (g m3 h1)
2380 0.04 e 49.58
4130 0.022 73.40 88.26
3624 0.093 140.35 302.24
34 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39

hourly irradiance changes and the surrounding temperature
throughout the year. The effect of this temperature change on the
maximum specific growth rate is considered via the Arrhenius-
equation type empirical model, thus yielding more accurate
overall growth compared to Base Case and Design 1. It can be
seen from Table 2 that the specific growth rate and average
irradiance are higher compared to the ones observed in the Base
Case and Design 1 reactors, hence requiring a smaller overall
reactor volume for producing algae at the same rate.
5.2. Results of the case problems
Twenty-four case problems were generated using the original
model presented in Section 2 for two species and four locations for
each PBR type with the minimum net present sink objective. The
resulting optimization problems (NLPs) include the temperature
and light variations for the whole year. The NLPs for tubular, col-
umn and flat plate cases have 3948, 3820, and 4667 equations, and
4091, 4234, and 5101 variables, respectively. As explained in Section
3, each model was initialized 1000 times using Latin-Hypercube
Sampling technique for each case separately. Out of the 1000 ini-
tializations, some problems yielded infeasible solutions, some
feasible, and a few locally-optimal solutions. The best of these
locally-optimal solutions are reported in Table 3 for each kind of
PBR.
Table 3 shows the results of three PBRs used in the case
study: tubular, column, and flat plate PBRs. The variables such
as cost (Z), tube diameter (F), TL (tube length), column diameter
(dC), CH (column height), flat plate width (W), FPH (flat plate
height), FPL (flat plate length), volume of the reactor (V), area
occupied by the reactor (A), bubble diameter (dB), average
irradiance inside the reactor (Iavg), superficial gas velocity (Ug),
average liquid velocity (Ul), BC (biomass concentration), specific
growth rate (m), volumetric productivity (PrV) are summarized.
In Table 3, the Cases one (1) through four (4) in the first column
for each type of PBR represent the results for growing
Phaeodactylum tricornutum species at Tulsa, USA; Hyderabad,
India; Cape Town, South Africa; and Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil;
respectively. Similarly, the results for growing Isochrysis galbana
species at each location (same order) are given in Cases five (5)
through eight (8) for each type of PBR.
The optimal PBR designs presented in Table 3 suggest that
growing Phaeodactylum tricornutum species at Hyderabad, India
(Case 2 of each PBR type) meet the demand of 34,386 g y1
biodiesel at the minimum production costs of $147, $156, and
$196, respectively for a plant life of 10 years. The lipid content of
Phaeodactylum tricornutum species (31 DW%) is higher than the
lipid content of the Isochrysis galbana species (21 DW%). Because
the amount of lipid production directly impacts the amount of
biodiesel production, the solutions favor the growth of
Phaeodactylum tricornutum species over the Isochrysis galbana
species for biodiesel production. Higher lipid content requires
lower reactor volumes to produce the given demand, and hence,
yields high biomass concentrations. This behavior can also be
observed in Table 3. For a given location and reactor type, Cases
1 through 4 where Phaeodactylum tricornutum species is
cultured requires a smaller PBR when compared to Cases 5
through 8 where Isochrysis galbana species is cultured. For
example, for tubular PBR at Tulsa, OK, when Cases 1 and 5 are
compared, the volume of the PBR in which
Phaeodactylum tricornutum is cultured (55 L), is lower than the
volume (93 L) of the PBR where Isochrysis galbana is cultured.
From Table 3, it can be observed that Hyderabad, India has
lower average incident irradiance when compared to Cape
Town, South Africa. However, it is considered to be the optimal
location for algae culturing because higher irradiance damage
the algae cells and lower the growth rates and concentration.
Lower concentrations may lead to larger reactor volumes. For a
given algae species and reactor type, Cases 2 and 6, cultured at
Hyderabad, India require lower reactor volume when compared
to Cases 1, 3, and 4, and Cases 5, 7, and 8, respectively. For
example, for tubular PBR and Phaeodactylum tricornutum

Table 3
PBR case results.

Tubular cases Z ($) F (m) TL (m) V (m3) A (m2) Iavg (mE m2 s1) Ul (m h1) BC (g m3) m (h1) PrV (g m3 h1)

1 283 0.056 22.27 0.055 3.55 133 2.03 4215 0.090 358
2 147 0.049 15.12 0.029 2.11 161 2.11 5548 0.136 688
3 262 0.053 23.51 0.051 3.51 195 2.63 4478 0.110 387
4 175 0.052 16.05 0.034 2.37 132 1.74 5412 0.105 579
5 474 0.071 23.78 0.093 4.75 206 3.79 2415 0.159 316
6 216 0.060 14.71 0.042 2.52 257 4.13 3565 0.278 694
7 452 0.065 26.97 0.088 4.94 307 5.40 2564 0.199 331
8 270 0.064 16.26 0.053 2.96 200 3.17 3401 0.193 554

Column cases Z ($) dC (m) CH (m) V (m3) dB (m) Iavg (mE m2 s1) Ug (m h1) Ul (m h1) BC (g m3) m (h1) PrV (g m3 h1)

1 167 0.1 7.08 0.056 0.108 81 25002 0.348 7452 0.047 357
2 156 0.1 6.61 0.052 0.107 76 25002 0.396 6526 0.058 382
3 184 0.1 7.82 0.061 0.107 81 25002 0.359 7103 0.044 323
4 167 0.1 7.10 0.056 0.107 76 25002 0.385 6446 0.053 356
5 214 0.1 9.05 0.071 0.105 107 25002 0.662 5694 0.072 412
6 179 0.1 7.56 0.059 0.107 100 25002 0.759 4953 0.099 493
7 247 0.1 10.46 0.082 0.102 106 25002 0.680 5478 0.064 357
8 200 0.1 8.47 0.067 0.104 101 25002 0.728 4889 0.085 440

Flat plate cases Z ($) W (m) FPH (m) FPL (m) V (m3) dB (m) Iavg (mE m2 s1) Ug (m h1) Ul (m h1) BC (g m3) m (h1) PrV (g m3 h1)

1 239 0.05 0.097 10 0.049 0.001 131 616 0.004 9101 0.043 408
2 196 0.05 0.079 10 0.039 0.001 116 616 0.004 8313 0.057 497
3 283 0.05 0.12 10 0.058 0.001 129 2218 0.005 8900 0.037 344
4 221 0.05 0.09 10 0.045 0.001 115 2538 0.004 8361 0.049 441
5 398 0.05 0.162 10 0.081 0.001 142 2556 0.007 8406 0.042 362
6 251 0.05 0.102 10 0.051 0.001 130 2218 0.023 7504 0.076 573
7 558 0.05 0.227 10 0.114 0.001 141 2218 0.028 8066 0.031 258
8 314 0.05 0.128 10 0.064 0.001 129 2538 0.008 7458 0.057 458
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
species, Case 2 requires a lower reactor volume of 29 L when
compared to Cases 1, 3, and 4 which require higher reactor
volumes of 55 L, 51 L, and 34 L, respectively. When it comes to
deciding which reactor type to select for growing algae at a
lower production cost, the results in Table 3 reveal that hori-
zontally oriented tubular PBR is the best choice because it has
higher surface to volume ratio when compared to other PBR
reactor types. Higher surface to volume ratio in tubular PBR
leads to lower tube diameter as shown in Table 3. Hence, our
results suggest that species with higher oil content cultured in
locations with moderate light availability yields lower biodiesel
production costs. Among the 24 cases considered, a combination
of Phaeodactylum tricornutum species grown at Hyderabad, India
in a tubular PBR with a reactor configuration of 0.05 m tube
diameter and 15.12 m tube length yields the lowest biodiesel
production cost with algae biomass concentration, specific
growth rate, and volumetric productivity of 5.55 g l1, 0.14 h1,
and 0.69 g l1 h1, respectively.
Fig. 3. Variation of decision variables with time for best case (Case 2) of each reactor type.
35
5.2.1. Effect of orientation of PBR on the culture properties
Fig. 3 shows how the culture properties (average irradiance
(Iavg), volumetric productivity (PrV), BC (biomass concentration)
and specific growth rate (m)) change with solar hour for a whole
year depending on the orientation of PBR. Only the results of the
best case, Case 2, for tubular, column and flat plate PBRs are
presented in Fig. 3. The graphs in Fig. 3 reveal that the culture
properties greatly depend on the orientation of PBR. In tubular
PBR cases, the peak observed in irradiance, productivity, biomass
concentration, and growth rates around 12 p.m. or solar noon,
occurs when the sun is at its apex and most nearly aligned with
the vertical axis of the horizontal tubular PBR. In this position,
the direct sunlight flux on the tubular PBR is at its highest
resulting in the highest growth rates, and hence, the highest
biomass concentrations and productivities. On the contrary, for
the vertical column [47] and the rectangular flat plate PBRs, the
peaks observed in the internal irradiance, productivity, concen-
tration, and growth rates around sunrise and sunset, occurs when
36 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
Table 4
Sensitivity analysis performed on best case, tubular PBR e Case 2.
Tubular case Z ($) F (m) TL (m)
SA1 189 0.06 13.47
SA2 111 0.04 17.37
SA3 94 0.04 18.76
SA4 196 0.06 13.26
SA5 318 0.09 10.07
SA6 555 0.15 6.34
sun is low on the horizon and most nearly aligned with the
horizontal axis of the vertical PBRs. While, the depression
observed around solar noon occurs when sun is at its apex
because, in this position, the direct sunlight flux on the vertical
PBRs is low. Hence, culture properties are at their peak during
solar noon for horizontal PBRs while for vertical PBRs, they are at
peak during sunrise and sunset times.
5.3. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is performed to determine the variables with
major influences on the production cost and to understand their
impact on the variation of other variables. The analysis is carried
out on two model parameters that may be considered important:
maximum permissible liquid velocity (Ulmax), and maximum
acceptable dissolved oxygen concentration ([O2]out) addressed in
Eq. (24). From the equation it can be noticed that both the chosen
model parameters have direct influence on reactor geometry
(Design) and hence, the production cost. Table 4 summarizes six
sensitivity analysis cases and their corresponding results obtained
by changing the chosen model parameters.
In order to investigate the impact of maximum permissible
liquid velocity, three different liquid velocities are tested on the
best case of tubular PBR, Case 2, using Latin hypercube sampling
initializations. Cases SA1, SA2, and SA3 shown in Table 4 are the
results obtained using three randomly chosen velocities namely,
0.35 m s1, 0.75 m s1, and 0.95 m s1, respectively. The results
reveal that the higher the liquid velocity, the higher the growth
rate and volumetric productivity of algae biomass becomes,
yielding the highest growth rate and productivity of Case SA3 with
a velocity of 0.95 m s1. This increase in growth rates and pro-
ductivities are due to better mixing of the culture at higher liquid
velocities, which facilitates better light distribution inside the
PBR. This enhances biomass concentration which leads to a
smaller reactor volume for satisfying the algal biomass demand in
a cost effective way.
Sensitivity analysis was also performed on maximum acceptable
dissolved oxygen concentration to assess its influence on reactor
geometry. Cases SA4, SA5, and SA6 shown in Table 4 are the cases
with three randomly chosen dissolved oxygen concentrations
namely, 24.6 g m3, 16.4 g m3, and 12.3 g m3, respectively. It can
be observed that when dissolved oxygen concentration in PBR is
high, (Case SA4), the allowable length of tubes is longer. Since the
demand (biomass production rate) is constant, the change in length
directly affects the tube diameter. Hence, the tube diameter de-
creases to meet the same demand. Lower diameter (lower surface
to volume ratio) leads to higher biomass concentration and volu-
metric productivity.
6. Conclusion and future work
There has been a growing interest in the production of bio-
diesel from algae because of global warming and scarcity in fossil
V (m3) Ul (m h1) BC (g m3) m (h1) PrV (g m3 h1)
0.037 1.61 5267 0.12 536
0.022 2.99 5938 0.17 913
0.018 3.67 6316 0.02 1078
0.038 1.55 5140 0.11 518
0.062 0.85 4175 0.08 318
0.109 0.33 3318 0.05 183
fuels. However, substantial challenges are encountered in
deriving fuels from algae biomass. Primary amongst them is the
higher costs of cultivating algae and the lack of efficient culti-
vation units. Design of the cultivation units is strongly influenced
by type of algal species selected for cultivation and preference of
location.
In this paper, a novel mathematical model is developed to
estimate the best combination of algae species, geographical
location, and type of outdoor cultivation unit by combining
experimentally validated temperature, irradiance, and algae
growth models with optimization. This work differs from existing
approaches in that it considers all the physical parameters such as
temperature, solar irradiance, oxygen build up, mass transfer, and
mixing to design the optimal cultivation unit and to analyze the
impact of one physical parameter over the other. In order to
represent the actual behavior of the outdoor cultivation unit, the
current model takes into account the diurnal pattern of sunlight,
temperature fluctuations, and the dynamic behavior of solar
zenith angle. Impact of this pattern on culture properties such as
biomass concentration, productivity, and growth rate has been
addressed in this study. The estimated biomass concentration,
productivity, and growth rate during outdoor cultivation facili-
tates in assessing the reactor geometry. The benefits of this
method include but not limited to a realistic design of photo-
bioreactors that produce the desired amount of biodiesel cost
efficiently. It has been found that horizontal-oriented PBR
configuration provides better yield than vertical-oriented PBR
configuration, given a desired demand, because of higher surface
to volume ratio. In the current work, the influence of two marine-
water species (Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Isochrysis galbana)
and four geographical locations (Tulsa, USA; Hyderabad, India;
Cape Town, South Africa; and Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil) on the design
of horizontal/vertical PBRs was investigated. A combination of
Phaeodactylum tricornutum species, Hyderabad location and hor-
izontal tubular PBR configuration provided cost effective pro-
duction of biodiesel.
It should be noted, however, that our current optimization
model ignores the effects of cloud cover on the growth rate, and
hence, gives an absolute upper bound for the biomass production.
The incorporation of cloud cover effects, requires the introduction
of stochastic modeling of the weather data, and is left as a future
study. This work is a first step towards understanding the combined
impact of all physical parameters on the reactor geometry and thus
the economics of algae cultivation.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from The Uni-
versity of Tulsa.
Appendix A
Case study data tables
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39 37

Table A1
Species dependent parameters used in the case study [86]

Species Percentage of dry algae (%) Lipid content (DW) Light absorption coefficient Constant (mE m2 s1)
of biomass (m2 g1) [36]

P. tricornutum 20 0.31 0.0369 114.67 [36]

I. galbana 30 0.21 0.0369 170.68

Table A2
Latitude, longitude and time zone for the selected locations [83]

Location Latitude Longitude Time zone

Tulsa, USA 37 N 96 W UTC-6

Hyderabad, India 17 N 78 E UTCþ5
Cape Town, South Africa 34 S 18 E UTCþ2
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 23 S 43 W UTC-3

Fig. A1. Nonlinear regression analysis on experimental data for Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Isochrysis galbana [84].

Table A3
Temperature parameters for the locations considered in the case study [85].

Date Tulsa Hyderabad Cape Town Rio de Janeiro

Tmax ( C) Tmin ( C) Tmax ( C) Tmin ( C) Tmax ( C) Tmin ( C) Tmax ( C) Tmin ( C)

January 15, 2012 17.78 0.00 27.78 7.22 33.89 20.00 35.00 25
February 15, 2012 11.11 5.56 35.00 20.00 23.33 16.67 32.22 22.78
March 15, 2012 26.67 18.89 36.67 20.56 27.22 20.00 35.00 23.89
April 15, 2012 24.44 16.11 37.22 24.44 18.89 12.22 36.11 25
May 15, 2012 28.89 12.22 40.56 28.89 21.11 6.11 21.11 17.78
June 15, 2012 30.00 18.89 36.11 27.78 20.00 6.11 27.22 20.00
July 15, 2012 34.44 18.89 28.89 22.78 11.11 8.89 21.11 18.89
August 15, 2012 36.11 18.89 31.11 22.78 15.00 8.89 27.22 17.22
September 15, 2012 22.78 16.67 30.00 22.22 27.22 7.78 27.78 18.89
October 15, 2012 29.44 11.67 32.22 18.33 21.67 16.11 25.00 17.22
November 15, 2012 16.67 1.11 28.33 15.56 22.78 16.67 23.89 17.78
December 15, 2012 17.22 8.33 30.00 16.11 22.78 17.78 33.89 22.78
38 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39

Table A4 Appendix B. Supplementary data

Values of the model parameters used in the case study

Scalar Value Unit Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
LBTD 0.01 m
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.001.
UBBC 10000 G m3
LBCD 1 m References
LBFPW 1 m
UBFPL 10 m [1] Ugarte DGWM, Shapouri H, Slinsky P. The economic impacts of bioenergy crop
hdryer 0.9 production in US agriculture. USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 816;
hextractor 0.948 2003.
htrans 0.962 [87] [2] FAO. The state of food and agriculture 2008. New York: Food and Agriculture
MWalgae 259 g mol1 Organization; 2008.
MWlipid 634 [61] g mol1 [3] IEA. IEA technology essentials-biofuel production. International Energy
MWBD 300 [60] g mol1 Agency; 2007.
MWgly 92.1 g mol1 [4] Moore A. Biofuels are dead: long live biofuels(?)-part one. New Biotechnol
EmpA 0.16, 0.19 [82] 2008;25(1):6e12.
Ephoton 225.3 kJ mol1 [5] Wang B, Li Y, Wu N, Lan C. CO2; bio-mitigation using microalgae. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2008;79(5):707e18.
a 14.28 moles
[6] Chisti Y. Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol. Trends Biotechnol
b 49066.67 moles
2008;26(3):126e31.
c 0.032 moles ^ Malcata FX. Microalgae: an alternative as sustainable
[7] Amaro HM, Macedo AC,
e 25.51 moles source of biofuels? Energy 2012;44(1):158e66.
f 3.34 moles [8] Hu Q, Sommerfeld M, Jarvis E, Ghirardi M, Posewitz M, Seibert M, et al.
g 0.55 moles Microalgal triacylglycerols as feedstocks for biofuel production: perspectives
h 57.56 moles and advances. Plant J 2008;54(4):621e39.
i 18.99 moles [9] Becker EW. Microalgae: biotechnology and microbiology. Cambridge: Uni-
j 48996.36 moles versity Press; 1993.
[10] Li Y, Horsman M, Wu N, Lan CQ, Dubois-Calero N. Biofuels from microalgae.
Biotechnol Prog 2008;24(4):815e20.
[11] Suh I, Lee C-G. Photobioreactor engineering: design and performance. Bio-
technol Bioprocess Eng 2003;8(6):313e21.
[12] Carvalho AP, Meireles LA, Malcata FX. Microalgal reactors: a review of
In Table A4, molecular weight of algae (MWalgae) is obtained by enclosed system designs and performances. Biotechnol Prog 2006;22(6):
converting the protein, carbohydrate, lipid, and nucleic acid con- 1490e506.
tents of fifteen most commonly available algae species into ele- [13] Chisti Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 2007;25(3):294e306.
[14] Brennan L, Owende P. Biofuels from microalgaedA review of technologies for
ments (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen) using average production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew
formula for each compound. The estimated composition of algae Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(2):557e77.
contains 14.28 mol of elemental carbon (a), 25.51 mol of elemental [15] Photobioreactors Pulz. production systems for phototrophic microorganisms.
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001;57(3):287e93.
hydrogen (e), 3.34 mol of elemental oxygen (f), 0.55 mol of
[16] Amos R. Handbook of microalgal culture: biotechnology and applied
elemental nitrogen (g), and 0.03 mol of elemental phosphorous (c). phycology. Blackwell Science Ltd; 2004.
Using the estimated molecular formula of microalgae, a mass bal- [17] Sheehan J, Dunahay T, Benemann J, Roessler P. A look back at the U.S.
ance was performed on photosynthetic reaction where carbon di- department of Energy's aquatic species program: biodiesel from algae. USA:
NREL/TP-580e24190, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1998.
oxide, water, elemental phosphorous, and elemental nitrogen react [18] Rodolfi L, Chini Zittelli G, Bassi N, Padovani G, Biondi N, Bonini G, et al.
to produce the dry microalgae, water in algae, oxygen, and large Microalgae for oil: strain selection, induction of lipid synthesis and outdoor
amount of waste water. mass cultivation in a low-cost photobioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng
2009;102(1):100e12.
[19] Kunjapur AM, Eldridge RB. Photobioreactor design for commercial biofuel
zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{ dry algae zfflffl}|fflffl{ water in algae production from microalgae. Ind Eng Chem Res 2010;49(8):3516e26.
aCO2 þ bH2 O þ cP þ gN/Ca He Of Ng Pc þ hH2 O [20] Wogan DMS, D AK, Webber ME, Stauberg E. Algae: pond powered biofuels.
ATI CleanEnergy Incubator: The University of Texas at Austin; 2008.
pp. 1e23.
zfflffl}|fflffl{ waste water [21] Borowitzka M. Algal biotechnology products and processes d matching sci-
þiO2 þ jH2 O ence and economics. J Appl Phycol 1992;4(3):267e79.
[22] Merchuk JC, Ronen M, Giris S, Arad S. Light/dark cycles in the growth of the
red microalga porphyridium sp. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998;59(6):705e13.
According to stoichiometry, 14.28 mol (a) of carbon dioxide react [23] Fernandez FGA, Camacho FG, Pe rez JAS, Sevilla JMF, Grima EM. A model for
light distribution and average solar irradiance inside outdoor tubular photo-
with 49066.67 mol (b) of water, 0.032 mol (c) of elemental phos- bioreactors for the microalgal mass culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 1997;55(5):
phorous, and 0.55 mol (g) of elemental nitrogen to produce 1 mol of 701e14.
dry algae, 57.56 mol (h) of water in algae, 18.99 mol (i) of oxygen, [24] Raven JA, Geider RJ. Temperature and algal growth. New Phytol 1988;110(4):
441e61.
and 48996.36 mol (j) of excess waste water.
[25] Eppley RW. Temperature and phytoplankton growth in the sea; 1972.
[26] Chisti MY. Airlift bioreactors. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1989.
[27] Zhu CJ, Lee YK, Chao TM. Effects of temperature and growth phase on lipid and
biochemical composition of Isochrysis galbana TK1. J Appl Phycol 1997;9(5):
Table A5 451e7.
[28] Hoogenhout H, Amesz J. Growth rates of photosynthetic microorganisms in
Design parameters comparison of two primer sets for P. intermedia.
laboratory cultures. Arch Mikrobiol 1965;50(1):10e25.
Tulsa Hyderabad Cape Town Rio de Janeiro [29] Butterwick C, Heaney SI, Talling JF. Diversity in the influence of temperature
on the growth rates of freshwater algae, and its ecological relevance. Freshw
Tubular PBR [88] Biol 2005;50(2):291e300.
EqCostl 5110 5110 5110 5110 [30] Goldman J, Carpenter E. A kinetic approach to the effect of temperature on
ElCostl 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 algal growth’. Limnol Oceanogr 1974;19(5):756e66.
Column PBR [89] [31] Ahlgren G. Temperature functions in biology and their application to algal
EqCostl 3000 3000 3000 3000 growth constants. Oikos 1987;49(2):177e90.
ElCostl 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 [32] Montagnes DJS, Franklin DJ. Effect of temperature on diatom volume, growth
Flat Plate PBR [90] rate, and carbon and nitrogen content: reconsidering some paradigms. Limnol
EqCostl 4919 4919 4919 4919 Oceanogr 2001;46(8):2008e18.
[33] Growth responses of several diatom species isolated from various environ-
ElCostl 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
ments to temperature.
 S. Yadala, S. Cremaschi / Energy 78 (2014) 23e39
[34] Werner D. Productivity studies on diatom cultures. Helgol Mar Res
1970;20(1):97e103.
[35] Eppley RW, Sloan PR. Growth rates of Marine phytoplankton: correlation with
light absorption by cell chlorophyll a. Physiol Plant 1966;19(1):47e59.
[36] Acien Ferna ndez FG, Fernandez Sevilla JM, S
anchez Pe rez JA, Molina Grima E,
Chisti Y. Airlift-driven external-loop tubular photobioreactors for outdoor
production of microalgae: assessment of design and performance. Chem Eng
Sci 2001;56(8):2721e32.
[37] Ugwu CU, Aoyagi H, Uchiyama H. Photobioreactors for mass cultivation of
algae. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(10):4021e8.
[38] Powles SB. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis induced by visible light. Annu
Rev Plant Physiol 1984;35(1):15e44.
[39] Bannister T. Quantitative description of steady state, nutrient-saturated algal
growth, including adaptation. Limnol Oceanogr 1979;24(1):76e96.
[40] Laws E, Bannister T. Nutrient- and light-limited growth of Thalassiosira flu-
viatilis in continuous culture, with implications for phytoplankton growth in
the ocean. Limnol Oceanogr 1980;25(3):457e73.
[41] Lee Y-K. Microalgal mass culture systems and methods: their limitation and
potential. J Appl Phycol 2001;13(4):307e15.
[42] Pulz O, Scheibenbogen K. Photobioreactors: design and performance with
respect to light energy input bioprocess and algae reactor technology,
apoptosis. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg; 1998. pp. 123e52.
[43] Lee Y-K. Enclosed bioreactors for the mass cultivation of photosynthetic mi-
croorganisms: the future trend. Trends Biotechnol 1986;4(7):186e9.
[44] Borowitzka MA. Closed algal photobioreactors: design considerations for
large-scale systems. J Mar Biotechnol 1996;4:185e91.
[45] Terry KL, Raymond LP. System design for the autotrophic production of
microalgae. Enzyme Microb Technol 1985;7(10):474e87.
[46] Molina GE. Mass culture methods. Wiley; 1999.
[47] Miron AS, Go mez AC, Camacho FG, Grima EM, Chisti Y. Comparative evalua-
tion of compact photobioreactors for large-scale monoculture of microalgae.
In: Osinga RJTJGB, Wijffels RH, editors. Progress in industrial microbiology.
Elsevier; 1999. pp. 249e70.
[48] Fernandez FGA, Camacho FG, Pe rez JAS, Sevilla JMF, Grima EM. Modeling of
biomass productivity in tubular photobioreactors for microalgal cultures: ef-
fects of dilution rate, tube diameter, and solar irradiance. Biotechnol Bioeng
1998;58(6):605e16.
[49] Liu BYH, Jordan RC. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of
direct, diffuse and total solar radiation. Sol Energy 1960;4(3):1e19.
[50] Lopez MCG-M, S anchez EDR, Lo pez JLC, Fernandez FGA, Sevilla JMF, Rivas J,
et al. Comparative analysis of the outdoor culture of Haematococcus pluvialis
in tubular and bubble column photobioreactors. J Biotechnol 2006;123(3):
329e42.
[51] Wu X, Merchuk JC. Simulation of algae growth in a bench-scale bubble col-
umn reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 2002;80(2):156e68.
[52] Bosma R, van Zessen E, Reith JH, Tramper J, Wijffels RH. Prediction of volu-
metric productivity of an outdoor photobioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng
2007;97(5):1108e20.
[53] Sierra E, Acien FG, Fernandez JM, García JL, Gonz alez C, Molina E. Character-
ization of a flat plate photobioreactor for the production of microalgae. Chem
Eng J 2008;138(1e3):136e47.
[54] Meiser A, Schmid-Staiger U, Tro €sch W. Optimization of eicosapentaenoic acid
production byPhaeodactylum tricornutumin the flat panel airlift (FPA)
reactor. J Appl Phycol 2004;16(3):215e25.
[55] Slegers PM, Wijffels RH, van Straten G, van Boxtel AJB. Design scenarios for
flat panel photobioreactors. Appl Energy 2011;88(10):3342e53.
[56] Hu Q, Guterman H, Richmond A. A flat inclined modular photobioreactor for
outdoor mass cultivation of photoautotrophs. Biotechnol Bioeng 1996;51(1):
51e60.
[57] García Camacho F, Contreras Gomez A, Acie n Ferna ndez FG, Fern andez
Sevilla J, Molina Grima E. Use of concentric-tube airlift photobioreactors for
microalgal outdoor mass cultures. Enzyme Microb Technol 1999;24:164.
[58] Lu C, Acie n Fernandez FG, Can ~ izares Guerrero E, Hall DO, Molina Grima E.
Overall assessment of Monodus subterraneus cultivation and EPA production
in outdoor helical and bubble column reactors. J Appl Phycol 2002;14(5):
331e42.
[59] Demirbas A. Microalgae as a feedstock for biodiesel. Energy Educ Sci Technol
2010:31e43. Part A(25).
[60] Sanchez A, Maceiras R, Cancela A, Rodríguez M. Influence of n-hexane on in
situ transesterification of marine macroalgae. Energies 2012;5(2):243e57.
[61] Lardon L, Helias A, Sialve B, Steyer J-P, Bernard O. Life-Cycle assessment of
biodiesel production from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43(17):
6475e81.
39
[62] Teoh Ming-Li, Chu Wan-Loy, Phag Siew-Moi. Effect of temperature change on
physiology and biochemistry of algae: a review. Malays J Sci 2010;29(2):
82e97.
[63] Yoder JA. EFFECT of temperature on light-limited growth and chemical
composition of skeletonema costatum (bacillariophyceae)1. J Phycol
1979;15(4):362e70.
[64] Grima EM, Camacho FG, Pe rez JAS, Sevilla JMF, Fern
andez FGA, Go mez AC.
A mathematical model of microalgal growth in light-limited chemostat cul-
ture. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 1994;61(2):167e73.
[65] Molina Grima E, Ferna ndez FGA, Garcıa Camacho F, Chisti Y. Photobioreactors:
light regime, mass transfer, and scaleup. J Biotechnol 1999;70(1e3):231e47.
[66] Wileman A, Ozkan A, Berberoglu H. Rheological properties of algae slurries for
minimizing harvesting energy requirements in biofuel production. Bioresour
Technol 2012;104(0):432e9.
[67] Aiba S. Growth kinetics of photosynthetic microorganisms. Microbial Re-
actions: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1982. pp. 85e156.
[68] Javanmardian M, Palsson BO. High-density photoautotrophic algal cultures:
design, construction, and operation of a novel photobioreactor system. Bio-
technol Bioeng 1991;38(10):1182e9.
[69] Yunus A, Cengel JMC. Fluid mechanics: fundamentals and applications. 1 ed.
McGraw-Hill; 2006.
[70] Molina E, Ferna ndez J, Acien FG, Chisti Y. Tubular photobioreactor design for
algal cultures. J Biotechnol 2001;92(2):113e31.
[71] Moshtari B, Babakhani EG, Moghaddas JS. Experimental study of gas hold up
and bubble behaviour in gas-liquid bubble column. Petrol Coal 2009;51:
27e32.
[72] Akita K, Yoshida F. Bubble Size, Interfacial Area, and Liquid-Phase Mass
Transfer coefficient in bubble columns. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev
1974;13(1):84e91.
[73] Towell G, Strand C, Ackerman G. Mixing and mass transfer in large diameter
bubble columns. Proc AIChE-I Chem E 1965;10:97e105.
[74] Zehner P, Kraume M. Bubble columns. Ullmann's encyclopedia of industrial
chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; 2000.
[75] Pohorecki R, Moniuk W, Bielski P, Sobieszuk P, Dabrowiecki G. Bubble
diameter correlation via numerical experiment. Chem Eng J 2005;113(1):
35e9. ́
[76] Buwa VV, Ranade VV. Characterization of dynamics of gaseliquid flows in
rectangular bubble columns. AIChE J 2004;50(10):2394e407.
[77] Woodhead T. Simulation of assimilation, respiration and transpiration of
crops. By D. T. de Wit et al. Pudoc (Wageningen), 1978. Pp. 140. D.F1.22.50. Q J
Royal Meteorol Soc 1979;105(445):728e9.
[78] Berninger F. Simulated irradiance and temperature estimates as a possible
source of bias in the simulation of photosynthesis. Agric For Meteorol
1994;71(1e2):19e32.
[79] Ebrahimpour A, Maerefat M. A method for generation of typical meteoro-
logical year. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51(3):410e7.
[80] Maxwell EL. A quasi-physical model for converting hourly global horizontal to
direct normal insolation. Unknown 1987:1.
[81] Hargreaves GH. Responding to tropical climates. Conf Respond Tropical Clim:
29e32.
[82] Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA. Estimating potential evapotranspiration.
J Irrigation Drainage Div 1982;108(3):225e30.
[83] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html.
[84] Thompson PA, Guo M-X, Harrison PJ. Effects of variation IN temperature. I. On
the biochemical composition of eight species of marine phytoplankton1.
J Phycol 1992;28(4):481e8.
[85] http://weatherspark.com/.
[86] Verma NMMS, Shukla A, Mishra BN. Prospective of biodiesel production uti-
lizing microalgae as the cell factories: a comprehensive discussion. Afr J
Biotechnol 2010;9:1402e11.
[87] Zhang Y, Dube M, McLean D, Kates M. Biodiesel production from waste
cooking oil: 2. Economic assessment and sensitivity analysis. Bioresour
Technol 2003;90(3):229e40.
[88] Molina Grima E, Belarbi EH, Acie n Fernandez FG, Robles Medina A, Chisti Y.
Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabolites: process options and eco-
nomics. Biotechnol Adv 2003;20(7e8):491e515.
[89] Qiang H, Richmond A. Optimizing the population density inIsochrysis galbana
grown outdoors in a glass column photobioreactor. J Appl Phycol 1994;6(4):
391e6.
[90] Cheng-Wu Z, Zmora O, Kopel R, Richmond A. An industrial-size flat plate glass
reactor for mass production of Nannochloropsis sp. (Eustigmatophyceae).
Aquaculture 2001;195(1e2):35e49.