RESEARCH ARTICLE | NOVEMBER 17 2022

Environmental impact of algae-based biofuel production: A

review 
Saleh M A Mobin; Firoz Alam; Harun Chowdhury 

AIP Conf. Proc. 2681, 020084 (2022)

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117093


View Export
Online Citation

06 July 2024 12:11:46

Environmental Impact of Algae-based Biofuel Production: A
Review
Saleh M A Mobin 1, a) Firoz Alam 1, b) and Harun Chowdhury 2, c)
1
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3083, Australia
2
ABSCUBE Engineering and Education Services Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria 3073, Australia

a)
salehmobin2013@gmail.com
b)
firoz.alam@rmit.edu.au
c)
Corresponding author: harun.chowdhury@abscube.com.au

Abstract. Concerns about the rapid depletion of fossil fuels, energy security, climate change due to global warming,
environmental pollution, and faster increase of fossil fuel prices have drawn attention to researchers, the scientific
community, and government policymakers to develop alternative energy sources for reducing dependence on fossil fuel.
In recent years, microalgae culture has received significant attention due to its potential application for bioenergy
production, wastewater treatment, industrial CO2 removal, and production of biochemical compounds that can be used for
human and animal health and other benefits. However, large-scale microalgae production and their processing for

06 July 2024 12:11:46

producing various products and by-products could have environmental impacts beyond energy consumption in the
microalgal production process. This article has reviewed the environmental effects of microalgae-based biofuel production
on water resources and quality, eutrophication, biodiversity, waterborne toxicant, algal toxicity, wastewater remediation or
treatment, waste generation, and greenhouse gas land-use changes, and genetically engineered microalgae.

INTRODUCTION
With the continuous growth of the global population, especially for the last half a century, the demand for primary
energy has been increased by manifolds. In 2010, the global total primary energy consumption was 505.38 exajoules,
but in 2019 this consumption increased to 581.51 exajoule [1]. The primary energy consumption was reduced to
556.63 exajoules in 2020 due to the covid 19 pandemic [1]. However, with the increased vaccination campaign and
smart lockdowns, the global economic activities and energy consumption are expected to reach the pre-COVID-19
level by the end of 2021. Due to increased energy consumption, the world faces two challenges: energy crisis and
environmental pollution [2].
The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for greenhouse gases emissions, especially CO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). The emission of these greenhouse gases has increased
progressively due to the extensive use of fossils fuel for power generation and vehicles, which has caused high carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. In 2010, the total CO2 emission was over 31.29 billion tonnes, but in 2019
it increased to 34.36 billion tonnes [1], and this has caused the severe global warming effect [3]. Global warming has
been identified as one of the critical challenges. In recent years, the impacts of global warming have caused severe
damages to the human and environmental ecosystem [4]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reduce CO 2 emissions
to avoid the detrimental impact of global warming. Hence, the development of CO 2 capture and sequestration
technologies to substantially reduce CO2 emissions from various sources, from industrial flue gas to exhaust emissions
from vehicles, has been intensified [4]. For example, since the 1970s, oil and gas companies have taken the initiative
to inject CO2 into oil reservoirs to enhance oil recovery [5].
To harness energy from renewable sources, researchers are actively looking into biomasses. It is well known that
plants can convert solar energy into chemical forms through photosynthesis. Among biomasses, microalgae have
higher photosynthetic efficiency than other crops (10-50 times greater than terrestrial plants), and they are fast-
growing microorganisms (100 times faster than terrestrial plants). They can double their biomass in less than one day

3rd International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2021

AIP Conf. Proc. 2681, 020084-1–020084-13; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117093
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4257-3/$30.00

020084-1
[6,7]. In addition, they can adapt themselves even in an extreme aquatic environment and absorb beneficial chemicals
economically.
Furthermore, microalgae cells contain approximately 50% carbon, and they can fix 1.8 kg of CO2 by producing 1
kg of microalgae biomass [8]. In addition, depending on the species and cultivation conditions, they can ma proper
quantities of carbohydrates (sugars) and fat (triacylglycerides) which are the raw materials for producing bioethanol
and biodiesel. Microalgae also have proteins that could be used as a source of animal feed. Some species can produce
various types of commercially valuable compounds such as carotenoids, EPA, DHA, astaxanthin, phycocyanins,
polyphenols pigments, and these compounds could be used in nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals, pharmaceuticals, aquatic
and terrestrial animal husbandry, food industry, etc. to make biofuel production more commercially viable [9,10].
Figure 1 shows microalgal culture, biofuel production process, and uses of microalgal bioproducts.

Physicochemical Input Microalgae Production Method Microalgal Biomass & Engineering Output & Application

Flocculant
Settling

Dissolved Transport Fuel

Air Flotation

Sun Light a) Algae Culture in Tabular Photobioreactor Solvent

Co-burning for
Centrifuge
Power Generation

Lipid Fish Feed

Extraction

Anaerobic

06 July 2024 12:11:46

CO2 from Power b) Algae Culture in Column Photobioreactor Cattle Feed
Phase Digestion
Plant and the Separation &
Atmosphere Solvent
Recovery
Sludge for Biogas Poultry Feed
By-Products

c) Algae Culture in Raceways Raw Oil

Upgrading
Pharmaceuticals &
(Hydrotreater) Hydrogen
Cosmaceuticals

Industrial & Municipal

Wastewater Refined
d) Algae Culture in Salt Water Biofuel Biofertilizer
f tili

FIGURE 1. Microalgal culture, biofuel production process, and uses of microalgal bioproducts

Generally, industry operations produce wastewater, and if this wastewater is discharged in aquatic systems without
proper treatment, it can lead to downstream pollution and ecosystem damage [11]. While chemical and physical-based
technologies are available to remove these nutrients, they are yet cost-effective [11].
Several recent life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have revealed that significant energy input is required to
cultivate microalgae and the harvesting and drying processes. The energy required (in the form of electricity) is usually
generated from burning coal or natural gas that emits substantial CO2 to the atmosphere. Thus, it is still questionable
whether the bio-fixation of CO2 by microalgae could offset the CO2 emitted during the processing of microalgae for
producing biodiesel [4].
Therefore, this article discusses the potential environmental effects of microalgae-based biofuel on water resources
and quality, eutrophication, biodiversity, waterborne toxicant, algal toxicity, wastewater remediation/treatment, and
waste materials (generation), greenhouse gas, land-use change, and genetically engineered microalgae, etc.

020084-2
 EFFECT OF MICROALGAE CULTIVATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Water Resources and Water Quality (Release of Cultural and Process Water)

Successful biofuel production from micro-algae depends upon a reliable and low-cost water supply. Depending on
the microalgae species, freshwater, brackish water, or saltwater must be added to the earthen pond, raceways, land-
based cultural tanks, re-circulating water system, or photobioreactors (PBR). In addition, regular topping up of water
is required in the cultural systems to compensate for evaporation loss. Sometimes, water may also be used to cool
some PBR systems. However, the water demands for algae cultivation are highly sensitive depending on the
geographic location and the variation of water demands due to the location-specific rates of evaporation and
precipitation. Most direct water demands occur due to the loss of water during the harvesting of algae and the
evaporation of cultural water, creating water stresses on other sectors, including rice production [12]. The water
demand can be reduced by using a re-circulating algal cultural system. However, there is a risk of using this system
as a greater concentration of infectious agent (bacteria, viruses, and fungi), remaining metabolites from destroyed
algal cells, and non-living inhibitors (such as organic and inorganic chemicals) remains in the re-circulating water that
may infect or inhibit the growth of targeted algal biomass. This risk can be reduced by regularly removing a portion
of the overall water, as this process would help purge those components [13]. Research has suggested that the use of
saltwater algae cultures may mitigate algae’s water footprint [12,14].
Biofuel production using microalgae may affect the water quality depending on the inputs used and management
practice employed during cultivation, harvesting, and processing of algae for producing algal products and bioproducts
and processing of spent water. The integrity of the cultural system’s infrastructure and weather events can also
influence the water quality. When saltwater algal species are cultured, or saline aquifer is used for culturing algae,
released effluent can increase the salinity level of receiving water bodies [15].
Industrial level algal cultivation requires large quantities of macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients to ensure a high
algal biomass yield. These nutrient elements include carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), iron, and in some cases,
silicon, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, manganese, sulfur, zinc, copper, and cobalt [10,16,17]. Algal biomass

06 July 2024 12:11:46

uses these nutrients to manufacture cellular components for their growth. Even these nutrients are not oversupplied in
cultural water, the total nutrient concentration in algal biomass would be high. Accidental or intentional release of a
significant volume of this cultural water along with organic loading into the environment can lead to undesirable
changes in the ecosystem structure and functioning of downstream freshwater and marine environment [13, 15]. They
can also contaminate groundwater and increase the salinity of the resource water [15]. However, if algae are cultured
in a municipal wastewater or the effluent of animal husbandry operations, it can improve water quality by removing
nutrient components. Biogas production from the effluent released after aerobic digestion of lipid-extracted algae can
also enhance the quality of water [18]. Accidental release (of culture water) can occur due to overtopping of ponds,
raceways, or cultural tanks caused by extreme rainfall or the damage of cultural systems by extreme weather conditions
like a tornado, hurricane, etc. The accidental release can also occur by breached clay or plastic liner of ponds or
raceways through normal weathering or extreme weather conditions. Hence, the algal cultural systems must be
designed and tested to withstand natural calamities. The quantification of water losses from the culture system
indicates the need to repair small leaks or refurbishment of infrastructures.

Environmental Effects of Eutrophication

The excessive richness of nutrients (such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and other plant nutrients) or increased
availability of one or more growth factors that are required for photosynthesis (e.g., sunlight, carbon dioxide, fertilizer)
in a lake or other water bodies causes excessive growth of the plant and algal biomass. This type of incident is defined
as eutrophication. Eutrophication is a prominent cause of impairment of many freshwater and coastal ecosystems
globally [19]. Algal culture has both positive and negative impacts on the environment. A negative result could occur
when untreated algal culture effluent, which contains residual nutrients in spent culture water, is released in the local
aquatic environment. However, the level of this impact depends on the size and quality of the release and the receiving
water system’s nutrient loadings, the volume of water, and residence time [15,20,21]. High nutrient loading in the
effluent of the algal culture system can cause a massive bloom of algae (mainly blue-green algae, i.e., cyanobacteria)
and other aquatic plants in the receiving water bodies. Oxygen depletion occurs due to high organic matter loading
and decomposition processes when these organisms die off and decompose. Hence, low-level oxygen condition
(hypoxia) or complete absence of oxygen condition (anoxia) can be observed in the receiving aquatic environment.

020084-3
Hypoxia and anoxia due to eutrophication continue to threaten commercial and recreational fisheries worldwide. Other
known consequences of cultural eutrophication include tainted drinking water supplies, the dense blooming of toxic
and foul-smelling phytoplankton that reduce water clarity and harm water quality, limiting light penetration causing
the growth reduction and even the death of plants in the coastal zone of water bodies.
Furthermore, it lowers the success of predators that need light to pursue and catch prey, reduces fisheries
production, depletes the dissolved inorganic carbon, and raises pH to extreme levels during the day, impairs
chemosensory abilities of aquatic animals' chemosensory abilities degrades the recreational opportunities
[19,22,23,24]. Anoxia can be found in the deeper zone of the water body. Freshwater algal blooms are sometimes
visible on lakes or ponds as scum surfaces. They can accumulate side of the water body downwind. Bloom can also
be recognized by discoloration of the water or by an earthy or musty odor coming from the water. Sometimes bloom
may not be visible because many toxigenic species contain gas vesicles that control buoyancy.
Eutrophication is also associated with significant changes in algal density, biomass, and broader aquatic
community structure [25,26,27]. Primary production of the marine environment is dependent on the availability of
nutrients, and the productivity and structure of higher tropic levels depend on this primary production [28]. The
aquaculture yield of planktivorous fish is often positively related to nutrient levels and ecosystem productivity [29].

Impact on Aquatic Biodiversity

As discussed previously, when algal culture effluent reaches the natural aquatic habitat, it can cause eutrophication
in receiving water bodies. One of the significant impacts of eutrophication is the reduction of biodiversity in the
receiving water due to hypoxia, anoxia, and toxicity. Decomposition of dead algal biomass consumes oxygen from
the water column, leading to the asphyxiation of aquatic organisms dependent on dissolved oxygen for respiration.
Hence, the marine organisms’ death can occur and be replaced by other dominant species. Thereby the aquatic
biodiversity can be changed. In addition, the decomposed material produces hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the anaerobic
layer of water bodies [20]. H2S is highly toxic to fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic organisms at concentrations
frequently found in natural and polluted situations. However, it has been recommended that 0.002 mg/L H 2S be

06 July 2024 12:11:46

considered a safe limit for protecting all fish species and bottom-dwelling invertebrates [30]. The seagrass community
plays a vital role in stabilizing the sediment and providing habitats and food sources for many marine organisms.
Nutrient-rich shallow marine waters can reduce the seagrass community as increased nitrogen concentrations and
loading adversely affect the seagrass [20,28].

Environmental Effects of Waterborne Toxicant and Algal toxicity

During the commercial algae culture, herbicides are often used in the open water pond and raceway systems to
prevent the growth of macrophytes. These herbicides are toxic. Sometimes industrial and municipal wastewater or
groundwater is used as a culture medium of algae. Depending upon the source, these media can contain heavy metals.
Many algal species (ex. cyanobacteria, diatoms, and chlorophytes, etc.) can accumulate heavy metals in their body
[31]. When these toxins enter into the water body or in the food chain and are consumed by humans and other animals,
they can cause toxicoses in the body. The composition, volume, and number of toxicants can vary depending on the
water source type.
Many algal species can produce harmful toxins at certain stages of their lifecycle, and the effects of the toxin can
be acute to chronic. The toxin production is species and strain-specific. However, environmental conditions can
influence toxin production [13]. Cyanobacteria, formerly known as blue-green algae, is one of the most essential and
abundant algal groups. This group is photosynthetic and distributed worldwide in freshwater, brackish, and marine
environments. Cyanobacteria are microscopic organisms that appear as blue-green, green, brown, red, or white scum
on the water surface. Cyanobacteria produce hundreds of bioactive compounds, and many of these compounds can
negatively affect humans and animals. There are 40 known genera of cyanobacteria with toxic potential. Most
toxicoses are caused by direct ingestion of cyanotoxins in the producing organisms or accessible in the water after cell
lysis. It is well documented that microcystins, saxitoxins, and other cyanotoxins can accumulate in shellfish, fish, and
other organisms in the food chain [32]. Toxigenic cyanobacteria, including Anabaena, Cylindrospermopsis,
Microcystis, and Oscillatoria, dominate nutrient-rich freshwater systems due to their superior competitive abilities,
especially under high nutrient concentrations [33]. Although known toxin-producing strains are not likely to be used
in the algal biofuel production systems, both freshwater and marine forms of toxin-producing algae could invade and
colonize the algal production system, especially in open water ponds or raceways. Therefore, monitoring algal

020084-4
composition in the open water pond or raceways is very important to maintain desired characteristics for processing
algal biomass to fuels, ensuring byproducts from lipid-extracted algae are safe for use by humans and animals [15].
Regular monitoring of metals and other toxic compounds in the resource water is required to eliminate risks for
humans and other animals.

Wastewater Treatment

Algae can grow in various aquatic environments as long as there are adequate amounts of carbon (organic or
inorganic), N (urea, ammonium, or nitrate), and P, as well as other trace elements, are present [10,11]. Microalgae
have been used as bioremediation in wastewater treatment over the last 45 years [34]. Various industry operations,
including the algal industry, produce wastewater, which can also be derived from municipal sewerage. If the
wastewater is discharged in aquatic systems without proper treatment, the excess nitrogen and phosphorus in
discharged wastewater can lead to downstream eutrophication and ecosystem damage [11,35]. The adverse effects of
such nutrient overloading in receiving aquatic ecosystems include the growth of nuisance algae, depletion of dissolved
oxygen concentrations (anoxia or hypoxia) and fish death, undesirable pH shifts, and cyanotoxin production [11,35].
While chemical and physical-based technologies can remove these nutrients, they are not cost-effective [36].
Wastewater contains organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and other macro and micronutrients. These nutrients are
required for microalgal growth. The Microalgae cultivation process traditionally utilizes an enormous amount of
chemical fertilizer. One alternative to chemical fertilizers is to use domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial,
aquaculture wastes and wastewaters, which are rich in organic and inorganic pollutants such as nitrogen and
phosphorus [11]. Numerous studies have been carried out on microalgae to remove nutrients such as nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, nitrate, silica, iron, magnesium, and other chemicals from municipal and industrial wastewater
[34,37]. Figure 2 shows the algal biomass production process utilizing wastewater. Removal of various types of
inorganic and organic pollutants from wastewater by different algae are shown in Table1.

06 July 2024 12:11:46

FIGURE 2. Algal biomass production process utilizing wastewater

020084-5
 TABLE 1. Inorganic and Organic Pollutant Removal from Wastewater by Different Types of Algae [adapted from 37].

SL Microalgal Species Pollution Control SL Microalgal Species Pollution

No. No. Control
1 Anabaena, Oscillatoria, NO-3, NO-2, NH4+, 14 Isochrysis galbana NH4+
Spirulina, S. platensis PO4-3
2 Anabaena sp 2,4,6- 15 Ochromonas danica Phenols
trinitrotoluene
3 Ankistrodesmus sp, CO2 16 Oedogonium hatei Ni
Scenedesmus sp,
Microactinium sp,
Pediastrum sp
4 Chlamydomonas Hg (II), Cd(II), 17 Oedogonium sp, Pb
reinhardtii Pb(II) Nostoc sp.
5 Chlorella sp Boron 18 Oscillatoria sp. H1 Cd(II)
6 Chlorella miniate, Tributyltin (TBT) 19 Phormidium Pb(II), Cu(II),
Chlorella vulgaris, bigranulatum Cd(II)
Chlorella sp.
7 Chlorella vulgaris Azo compounds 20 Phormidium Cu(II), Fe(II),
laminosum Ni(II), Zn(II)
8 Chlorella vulgaris NH4+, PO4-3 21 Scenedesmus Cu(II), Zn(II),
quadricauda Ni(II)
9 Chlorella sp P 22 Spirulina platensis Cr(VI)
10 Chlorella vulgaris Cd, Zn 23 Streptomyces U
viridochromogene,
Chlorella regularis

06 July 2024 12:11:46

11 Chlorella vulgaris, N and P 24 Ulva lactuca Cd(II), Pb(II)
Scenedesmus rubescens
12 Chlorella salina Co, Zn, Mn 25 Undaria pinnatifida Ni, Cu
13 Coelastrum Pd
proboscideum

WASTEWATER REMEDIATION UTILIZING MICROALGAE

Pharmaceutical Wastewater

Detection of an increasing number of pharmaceutically active compounds in the aquatic environment is emerging
as a significant threat for both aquatic animals and humans. The presence of over 200 different pharmaceutically active
compounds in the water body has been reported [38]. The algae-bacteria consortium can remove these harmful
pharmaceutical compounds from wastewater through bioaccumulation or biodegradation. Examples of this type of
microalgae are Chlorella sp, Chlorella vulgaris, Nostoc linckia, Lyngbya lagerlerimi, Spirogyra, Oscillatoria
rubescens [38].

Textile Wastewater

Textile industries are responsible for releasing a large volume of effluent characterized by solid color, high salinity,
high temperature, variable pH, and high chemical oxygen demand. This effluent contains mainly various types of
commercial fabric dyes. To fulfill the requirement of textile industries, annually, over 7 x 105 tons of paints are
produced worldwide [39]. Jinqi and Houtian [40] reported that Chlorella sp. and Oscillatoria sp. can decompose more
than 30 azo dyes.

020084-6
 Heavy Metal Containing Effluent

The effluent of many industries, such as metal electroplating facilities, textile industries, mining operations, and
tanneries, contains various heavy metals. These metals are not biodegradable and are becoming part of the food chain.
They tend to accumulate in the body of aquatic organisms, causing multiple types of diseases and disorders and toxicity
to the aquatic environment [41,42]. Microalgae have a high capacity to accumulate heavy metals (selenium, chromium,
lead), metalloids (arsenic), and toxic organic compounds (hydrocarbons) to form microalgae biomass which
subsequently can be used for biofuel production [37]. Algal biomass can remove heavy metals from the wastewater
through absorption and bioaccumulation. Due to their high tolerance and efficient bioaccumulation capability of heavy
metals, Nitzschiapalea and Nitzchiaperminuta can treat wastewater with a high ratio of heavy metals. Various technics
could enhance the absorption capability of heavy metals by microalgae [42]. Loutseti et. al. [41] reported that efficient
removal of copper (80%) and cadmium (100%) from metal-containing wastewater was possible to achieve via a
mixture of dried algal biomass. Therefore, growing algae in the metal-contaminated wastewater offer a simple and
sustainable solution to mitigate the metal contamination problem.

Agricultural Wastewater

Agricultural wastewater usually contains high ammonium concentration, and many microalgae use this ammonium
as their nitrogen source to produce biomass. Under optimal conditions, microalgae can often remove over 90%
ammonium. Cyanobacteria also can remove nitrogen very efficiently [38]. Numerous researches reported that
microalgae are efficient factories for removing N and P from manure-based wastewater. For example, the green alga
Botryococcus braunii grows well in swine manure wastewater containing 788 mg/L NO3 and removes 80% of the
initial NO3 content [11].

Municipal Wastewater

06 July 2024 12:11:46

Most municipal wastewater is rich in ammonia (NH3), phosphate (PO-4), and other essential nutrients required to
support microalgal biomass production. The municipal sewage also contains trace metals such as Fe, Cu, Mn, and Zn,
necessary for photosynthesis [11]. Zhou et al. [43] reported that wastewater to grow algae is probably the most
promising route to reduce biofuel production costs and control aquatic pollution. In that study, they observed that
Auxenochlorella protothecoides UMN280 could remove over 59% of the total nitrogen, 81% of the total phosphorus,
88% of the chemical oxygen demand (COD), and 96% of the total organic carbon from wastewater. Therefore,
integrating intensive, large-scale microalgal cultivation raceways with traditional municipal wastewater may provide
the means to control the municipal wastewater pollution and significant quantities of less expensive biofuel feedstuff
production. Thus, compared to physical and chemical treatment processes, algae-based treatment can potentially
achieve nutrient removal in a less costly and ecologically safer way with resource recovery, and recycling added
benefits.

Waste Materials
Algae production process and biomass processing industries generate solid and liquid waste products. Biofuel
extracted waste products can be recycled for producing various value-added co-products. As freshwater and marine
algae live in favorable or unfavorable environmental conditions, they develop unique defense mechanisms to survive
by producing many chemical compounds in their bodies. These chemical compounds are the commercial sources of
various high-value bioproducts that can be used for human and animal health and other benefits [44]. Therefore, oil-
extracted algal biomass can be recycled to extract those valuable chemical compounds. A list of major bioactive
compounds extracted from microalgae can be found in [44]. Mobin et al. [44] have elaborately discussed this
bioproduct's uses in nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals, pharmaceuticals, aquatic and terrestrial animal husbandry, food
industry, etc. Lipid extracted dry biomass can also be used as livestock and aquaculture feed, organic fertilizer (thanks
to its high nitrogen and phosphorus content), or burned for energy cogeneration [10,45]. Dried algal biomass can also
be used in coal-fired power plants for electric power generation due to its higher thermal calorific value than coal
(calorific value of algal biomass: approximately 28,000 kJ/kg compared to the high thermal quality coal’s calorific
value of 27,000 kJ/kg). An average coal-fired power plant of 126 MW capacity uses 430 tonnes of coal per day; co-
firing with 3 tonnes of algae can reduce coal usage by 3.11 tonnes per day or 1,026 tonnes per year [10]. The effluent

020084-7
from the algal culture system or processing plant can be recycled to recover various raw materials. Thus, adding all
values of these processes can offer sustainability to the algal biofuel industry as the current biofuel production process
is not very cost-effective [9,10,44].
The waste biomass, solid wastes generated from the algal culture raceways, photobioreactors, and recycling ponds,
and the sludge produced during the biofuel manufacturing process through anaerobic digestion process in a digester
can finally be used in the landfill, and the treated or recycled wastewater can be released to the sewage system. The
solid waste generated from the synthetic plastic liner of open earthen ponds, raceways, or closed photobioreactors
must be disposed of periodically. Hence, the recycling process would help reduce or eliminate the volume of waste.

Greenhouse Gas (Industrial CO2 Removal)

Global warming due to increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, nitrogen- and sulfur-oxides,
methane, and other greenhouse gases has been identified as critical challenges in the modern era. The anthropogenic
emission of CO2, associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, is one of the major causes of CO 2 concentration in
the atmosphere, which has posed significant challenges to worldwide sustainability. The CO2 can be removed/captured
through physicochemical absorbents, injection into deep oceans, geological strata, old coal mines, oil wells, saline
aquifers, and enhanced biological fixation [46]. On the background of significant challenges in applying these
methods, microalgae have attracted great attention for CO2 focus and biofuel production. Microalgae can convert CO2
and supplementary nutrients available in the water bodies into biomass via photosynthesis at much higher rates than
the conventional first- and second-generation biofuel feedstuff [10,11, 16, 47]. Therefore, microalgae can be potent in
bio-fixing the CO2 from the atmosphere while producing renewable fuels. However, microalgae will also produce
CO2 via respiration. When combusted, lipids from microalgae biomass can be converted to biodiesel, renewable fuel
that emits less CO2 than fossil diesel [4].
Microalgae are unique microorganisms that proliferate: 100 times faster than terrestrial plants, and they can double
their biomass in less than a day [10,48]. In addition, phototrophic microalgae can convert solar energy to chemical
energy with an efficiency of 10–50 times greater than terrestrial plants. They utilize atmospheric CO2 as their carbon

06 July 2024 12:11:46

source during photosynthesis [4]. However, the capacity of CO2 uptake of microorganisms from the atmosphere varies
with the species. For example, Francisco et al. [49] found the diatom P. tricornutum had a low carbon uptake rate of
1.5 mg l-1 min-1 compared with a 28 mg l-1 min-1 by cyanobacteria A. microcopia Nageli. For example, for producing
1 kg microalgal biomass, microalgae utilize/fix 1.8 kg CO 2 [8]. Hence, microalgae can act as a potent agent in bio-
fixing atmospheric CO2 while producing renewable biofuels. However, several recent life cycle assessment (LCA)
studies have raised the question of whether the bio-fixation of CO2 by microalgae can offset the CO2 produced by its
required energy input during microalgae cultivation and processing for biofuel production [4]. The growth rate and
lipid productivity of microalgae can be enhanced by supplementing the higher concentration of CO2 (1–15%)
compared to the air from the atmosphere (0.04% CO2). This supplementation can be done utilizing flue gas from an
electric power generation plant or other sources. As a result, higher biomass and lipid productivity can be achieved in
a relatively short cultivation time. This approach creates a sustainable carbon cycle as CO2 emitted from burning the
biodiesel or bioethanol is absorbed back by the microalgae [4].
Methane (CH4) is another potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential, and, therefore, large-scale
emissions are of concern in the context of climate change. Methanogenesis can occur in some ponds with substantial
dead biomass or other organic matter in the sediment. Methane can be produced when dead algal cells or other organic
materials decompose [50]. Therefore, any scale of microalgal cultivation facility is likely to contribute to CH4
emissions to the atmosphere. However, only a few studies reported methane emissions from large-scale microalgae
facilities. Methane production is related to water temperature and is maximized at neutral pH [15]. Methanogenesis
might be enhanced if the algal culture fails.
N2O is a component of greenhouse gas, and it is 264 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas [51]. N2O
can be produced either from autotrophic bacteria under non-axenic conditions or by denitrifies [52]. Fagerstone et al.
[53] reported that N2O levels were negligible in the open ponds of Nannochloropsis salina under toxic conditions.
Nevertheless, the N2O levels got increased where anoxic conditions developed. Guieysse et al. [54] reported that
microalgae-mediated N2O formation might significantly contribute to N 2O emissions in largescale microalgae
cultivation (e.g., 1.38–10.1 kg N2O-N ha−1 yr−1 in a 0.25 m deep raceway pond operated under Mediterranean climatic
conditions). It was also reported that when Neochloris sp and C. vulgaris were cultured in an outdoor photobioreactor
feeding with NO-3, N2O emissions were detected in the culture. The emissions were estimated to be 0.1–0.4% of the
daily N-NO-3 load. It was further reported that N2O emissions from C. vulgaris were positively correlated to biomass

020084-8
concentration (R = 0.77) and light intensity (R = 0.57) [55]. During the catastrophic failure of the algal culture, the
dense algal cultures in algal biofuel ponds can become anaerobic and emit a variety of volatile nitrous or sulfur
compounds [15].

Ammonia

Atmospheric ammonia can lead to water pollution through surface run-off in the form of nitrites (NO-2), nitrates
(NO-3), and ammonium (NH+4) and dissolved organic nitrogen, potentially contributing to soil acidification, the
leaching of soil nutrients, eutrophication, and groundwater pollution. Ammonia emissions can therefore be of potential
concern for microalgae cultivation systems [20]. Ammonia is the most critical component of agricultural wastewater.
Synthetic fertilizers like nitrogen fertilizer have a significant role in adding ammonia to wastewater effluent. When
animal manure wastewater is used for algae cultivation, high nutrient concentration, especially ammonia
concentration, can considerably inhibit algal growth [11]. Microalgae are the most successful tool to treat wastewater
and make toxic ammonia valorize [42]. In the open water algal ponds, ammonia nitrogen can be lost to the atmosphere
if the pH value of water is high (>9, even >10) [56].

Land Use Change

To establish a commercial-scale biofuel production facility, a substantial land area would be required resulting in
the conversion of lands from other existing uses. However, arable land can be used for algal production as algae
cultivation does not require fertile soils usually needed for food crop production. Therefore, algae cultivation is less
likely to incur indirect land-use changes. Low-cost land should be used for the microalgal biofuel industry to keep
capital and operating costs low for algal biofuel companies to operate close to the profit margin [10,15]. Hence, the
algal biofuel industry can be established in rangelands, deserts, scrubland, abandoned farmland, or unproductive
farmland. Therefore, displacement of commodity crops by algae is unlikely. The site selection criteria for microalgae
cultivation have been defined by [57,58]. Open pond systems allow large-scale algal cultivation at a low cost.

06 July 2024 12:11:46

However, the topographic and soil quality constraints limit the land available for this system. The relatively flat terrain
is required for establishing large shallow raceways. Poros and unstable soil can impact algal production costs as the
pond lining and sealing would be necessary to avoid water leakage and embankment collapse [13]. Various types of
physicochemical factors influence algal production, including temperature, availability of sunlight, and duration of
sunlight exposure. Therefore, the most suitable locations for algal culture are tropical countries close to the equator
[13]. Direct and indirect land-use changes can affect biofuels’ net greenhouse gas emissions [15].

Environmental Effects of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms

Despite having enormous potential, the current production, harvesting, and processing techniques of microalgal
biomass for carbon-neutral biofuel production remains not cost-effective [9,10,16,44]. Therefore, further optimization
of the microalgal mass culture technique is required to make this carbon-neutral energy source economically viable
and sustainable. To achieve this objective, scientists are searching for algal species or strains that can simultaneously
deliver high biomass yield and high lipid content. The utilization of genetic engineering technology can be one of the
possible options to serve this purpose. Thousands of algae strains have been engineered to increase and survive
unfavorable [59]. It has been reported that biotechnological interventions can reduce the microalgal biofuel production
cost by 15–20% in comparison with the traditional approaches [60]. This intervention can be used to increase
photosynthetic efficiency, enhancement of light penetration into dense microalgal cultures, increase temperature and
stress toleration ability, improve herbicide resistance ability to prevent contamination of culture by wild stock,
enhancement of productivity of biomass and oil content, and reduce photoinhibition of microalgae [10,13,59,61]. The
basic understanding of microalgal biology can facilitate gene cloning and manipulation. Applications of molecular
genetics can facilitate faster screening and selection of desirable strains for culturing modified algae on a mass scale.
Significant concerns for cultivating genetically modified microalgae (ex-GM Cyanobacteria) are: i) they can easily
invade ecosystems due to their small size, ii) they can grow fast iii) they can compete with native species in the open-
raceway or pond culture system and can alter natural habitats and biodiversity iv) can be responsible for horizontal
gene transfer with native microalgae and v) can produce toxicity [59,62].
It has been reported that nonnative species can invade and spread in native communities. Still, it depends on the
persistence of genetically engineered algae against the biotic and abiotic stress factors in the presence of native algal

020084-9
species [63]. After conducting an experiment over fifty days with genetically modified Acutodesmus dimorphus in an
open water pond system, it was reported that the effect of the genetically modified algae on the biodiversity and species
composition of the pond was negligible, and they also observed that the introduced microalgae were not able to outpace
the native species [63]. Some researchers suggested that most genetically modified algae would have lower fitness in
receiving water bodies than wild stock [64]. In contrast, genetically engineered species to become more tolerant of
environmental stressors can bloom in habitat conditions where blooms previously not observed [13]. In a survey with
experts and stakeholders in the European Union (EU), it has been reported that some respondents are not convinced
about the need to alter natural occurring algae strains to increase productivity as the consequences of using genome
editing are still unknown. There is a vast unexplored variety of algae in the environment [65]. Therefore, there are
many significant opinion divergences about using genetically modified microalgae for biofuel production. Hence, a
comprehensive evaluation of the impact of non-indigenous and engineered microalgal strains on the native ecosystem
and human health would be helpful to establish whether the cultivation of genetically modified algae is feasible for
biofuel production or not.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Microalgae cultivation can have diverse environmental and location-specific positive and negative impacts.
Carbon capture through microalgae production appears as a new effort in reducing CO 2 concentration in the
atmosphere. To mitigate the problem of CO2 emission in the atmosphere from flue gas during power generation, the
biofuel industry has appeared as an emerging industry with the potential to mitigate CO2 emission along with carbon-
neutral biofuel production. This industry has also shown the potential to replace part of the fuel raw material required
for power generation in the powerplant. On the other hand, for producing raw materials for the biofuel industry,
coupling microalgae culture with wastewater treatment plants can help to mitigate the aquatic environmental pollution
problem by removing various types of macro and micronutrients from the wastewater. Thus, the biofuel industry can
play a positive role in improving the environment. However, microalgal light absorption and photosynthesis are
limited in wastewater ponds, and the improvement of this condition, among other technology, utilizing genetically

06 July 2024 12:11:46

engineered algae will undoubtedly increase biomass yield. Using various technological advancements, enhancing
biomass and lipid production is a top priority to make a microalgal biofuel a commercial reality.
The increasing detection of pharmaceutically active compounds and heavy metals in the aquatic environment poses
a significant threat to aquatic animals and humans. Many of these pollutants are not biodegradable and becoming part
of the food chain. Currently, the available technologies to remove these toxic components from the aquatic
environment are expensive and not sustainable. In this regard, microalgae offer a remedy as they have a higher capacity
to remove these components from the ecosystem. However, all types of microalgae do not have the same ability to
remove pollutants from the environment efficiently. At present, there is no single species of microalgae that can
remove all types of pollutants by biodegradation, absorption, and bioaccumulation. Thus, extensive research is
required to find more tolerant microalgae for removing the diverse range of contaminants economically and
sustainably.
Enormous energy input is required to cultivate, harvest, dry, and process microalgae, and this needed energy is
typically steamed from fossil fuel that emits a substantial amount of CO2. Finally, to answer whether bio-fixation of
CO2 by microalgae can offset the CO2 emitted during biofuel production, comprehensive life cycle assessments of
the microalgal output are required. To mitigate environmental impacts caused by water resources utilization,
wastewater production, waste generation, waterborne toxicant and algal toxicity generation, eutrophication,
biodiversity, land-use changes, greenhouse gas emission, and genetically engineered microalgae - mentioned in this
paper, extensive research effort needs to be undertaken.

REFERENCES

1. Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, 70th edition.

2. V. K. Gupta and M. G. Tuohy. Biofuel technologies: recent developments (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2013).
3. S. E. Hosseini, M. A. Wahid, and N. Aghili, The scenario of greenhouse gases reduction in Malaysia. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 28, 400–9 (2013).
4. M. K. Lam, K. T. Lee, and A R. Mohamed, Current status and challenges on microalgae-based carbon capture,
Int. J. Green. Gas Control. 10, 456-469 (2012).

020084-10
5. A. R. Kovscek, M. D. Cakici, Geologic storage of carbon dioxide and enhanced oil recovery. II. Cooptimization
of storage and recovery. Energ. Convers Manage 46, 1941–1956 [2005].
6. M. R. Tredici 2010. Photobiology of microalgae mass cultures: understanding the tools for the next green
revolution, Biofuels 1, 143–162 (2010).
7. S. A. Khan, R. M. Z. Hussain, S. Prasad, and U. C. Banerjee, Prospects of biodiesel production from microalgae
in India. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13, 2361–2372 (2009).
8. C. Yusuf, Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol. 25, 294–306 (2007).
9. S. Mobin and F. Alam, Some promising microalgal species for commercial applications: A review, Energy
Procedia 110, 510 – 517 (2017).
10. S. M. A. Mobin and F. Alam, “A review of microalgal biofuels, challenges and future directions”, in Application
of thermo-fluid processes in energy systems: key issues and recent developments for a sustainable future, edited
by M. M. K. Khan, A. A. Chowdhury, N. M. S. Hassan (Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., Singapore, 2018),
pp. 83-108.
11. S. Mobin and F. Alam, “Biofuel production from algae utilizing wastewater”, Proceedings of 19th Australasian
Fluid Mechanics Conference Melbourne, Australia 8-11 December 2014, Article No. 27 (Curran Associates Inc.,
Red Hook, NY, 2014), pp 82-88.
12. G. G. Zaimes and V. Khanna, Microalgal biomass production pathways: Evaluation of life cycle environmental
impacts. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:88, 1-11 (2013).
13. R. Slade and A. Bauen, Micro-algae cultivation for biofuels: cost, energy balance, environmental impacts and
future prospects, Biomass Bioenergy 54, 29-38 (2013).
14. M-OP Fortier and B. S. Sturm, Geographic analysis of the Feasibility of collocating algal biomass production
with wastewater treatment plants, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 11426-11434 (2012).
15. National Research Council, “5 Environmental effects” in Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels in the
United States, (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012), pp. 139-190.
https://doi.org/10.17226/13437.
16. F. Alam, S. Mobin, and H. Chowdhury, Third generation biofuel from algae. Procedia Engineering 105, 763–

06 July 2024 12:11:46

768 (2015).
17. Y. Chisti, Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 25, 294–306 (2007).
18. R. Davis, A. Aden, and P.T. Pienkos, Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae for fuel production,
Appl. Energy 88, 3524-3531 (2011).
19. M. F. Chislock, E. Doster, R. A. Zitomer, and A. E. Wilson, Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and
Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems, Nature Education Knowledge 4, 10 (2013).
20. P. K. Usher, A. B. Ross, M. A. Camargo-Valero, A. S. Tomlin, and W. F. Gale, An overview of the potential
environmental impacts of large-scale microalgae cultivation, Biofuels 5, 331-349 (2014).
21. V. H. Smith, Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems—A global problem. Environ. Sci.
Pollut Res. 10, 126-139 (2003).
22. S. R. Carpenter, N.E. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley, and V. H. Smith,Nonpoint pollution
of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 8, 559-568 (1998).
23. M. Lehtiniemi, J. Engström-Öst, and M. Viitasalo, Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae,
Esox Lucius. Environ. Biol. Fishes 73, 1-8 (2005).
24. A. M. Turner and M. F. Chislock, Blinded by the stink: nutrient enrichment impairs the perception of predation
risk by freshwater snails. Ecol. Appl. 20, 2089-2095 (2010).
25. M. Scheffer, S. Rinaldi, A. Gragnani, L. R. Mur, and E. H. vanNes, On the dominance of filamentous
cyanobacteria in shallow, turbid lakes. Ecology 78, 272-282 (1997).
26. C. S. Reynolds, V. Huszar, C. Kruk, L. Naselli-Flores, and S. Melo, Towards a functional classification of the
freshwater phytoplankton. J. Plankton. Res. 24, 417-428 (2002).
27. T. J. Smayda and C. S. Reynolds, 2003. Strategies of marine dinoflagellate survival and some rules of assembly.
J. Sea Res. 49, 95-106 (2003).
28. R. A. Efroymson, D. S. Jones, and A. J. Gold, An ecological risk assessment framework for effects of onsite
wastewater treatment systems and other localized sources of nutrients on aquatic ecosystems. HERA 13, 574-
614 (2007).
29. R. W. Bachmann, B. L. Jones, D. D. Fox, M. Hoyer, L. A. Bull, and D. E. Canfield, Relations between trophic
state indicators and fish in Florida (USA) lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat Sci. 53, 842-855 (1996).

020084-11
30. L. L. Smith, Jr., D. M. Oseid, I. R. Adelman, and S. J. Broderis, Effect of Hydrogen Sulfide on Fish and
Invertebrates: Part-I Acute and Chronic Toxicity Studies (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth,
Minnesota 55804, 1976).
31. T. Mathews and N. S. Fisher, Trophic transfer of seven trace metals in a four-step marine food chain. Mar Ecol
Prog Ser 367, 23-33 [2008].
32. A. da. S. Ferrão-Filho and B. Kozlowsky-Suzuki, Cyanotoxins: bioaccumulation and effects on aquatic Animals,
Mar. Drugs 9, 2729-2772 (2011)
33. H. W. Paerl and V. J. Paul, Climate change: links to global expansion of harmful cyanobacteria. Water Research
46, 1349-1363 (2012).
34. J. Milano, H. C. Ong, H. H. Masjuki, W. T. Chong, and M. K. Lam, Microalgae biofuels as an alternative to
fossil fuel for power generation, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 58, 180-197 (2016).
35. D. L. Correll, Role of phosphorus in the eutrophication of receiving waters: a review, J. Environ. Qual. 27, 261–
6 [1998].
36. G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, and H. D. Stensel. Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse (4th Edition).
(TMH, 2011).
37. J. P. Maity, J. Bundschuh, C. Chen, and P. Bhattacharya, Microalgae for third generation biofuel production,
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and wastewater treatment: Present and future perspectives e A mini
review, Energy 78, 104-113 (2014).
38. Y. Wang, S. Ho, C. Cheng, W. Guo, D. Nagarajan, N. Ren, D. Lee, and J. Chang, Perspectives on the feasibility
of using microalgae for industrial wastewater treatment, Bioresour. Technol. 222, 485-497 (2016).
39. T. Robinson, G McMullan, R Marchant, P Nigam, Bioresource technology, Remediation of dyes in textile
effluent: a critical review on current treatment technologies with a proposed alternative, Bioresour. Technol. 77,
247-255 (2001).
40. L. Jinqi and L. Houtian, Degradation of azo dyes by algae, Environ. Pollut. 75, 273-278 (1992).
41. S. Loutseti, D. B. Danielidis, A. Economou-Amilli , Ch. Katsaros, R. Santas, and Ph. Santas, The application of
a micro-algal/bacterial biofilter for the detoxification of copper and cadmium metal wastes, Bioresour. Technol.

06 July 2024 12:11:46

100, 2099-2105 (2009).
42. F. Hussain, S. Z. Shah, H. Ahmad, S. A. Abubshait, H. A. Abubshait, A. Laref, A. Manikandan, H. S. Kusuma,
and M. Iqbal, Microalgae an ecofriendly and sustainable wastewater treatment option: Biomass application in
biofuel and bio-fertilizer production. A review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 137, 110603 (2021).
43. W. Zhou, Y. Li, M. Min, B. Hu, H. Zhang, X. Ma, L. Li, Y. Cheng, P. Chen, and R. Ruan, Growing wastewater-
born microalga Auxenochlorella protothecoides UMN280 on concentrated municipal wastewater for
simultaneous nutrient removal and energy feedstock production, Applied Energy 98, 433-440 (2012).
44. S. M. A. Mobin, H. Chowdhury, and F. Alam, Commerically important bioproducts from microalgae and their
current applications – a review. Energy Procedia 160, 752-760 (2019).
45. S. S. Baral, K. Singh, and P. Sharma, The potential of sustainable algal biofuel production using CO 2 from
thermal power plant in India. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 49, 1061–1074 (2015).
46. A. Kumar, S. Ergas, X. Yuan, A. Sahu, Q. Zhang, J. Dewulf, F. X. Malcata, H. van Langenhove, Enhanced CO(2)
fixation and biofuel production via microalgae: recent developments and future directions. Trends. Biotechnol.
28, 371–80 (2010).
47. F. Alam, A. Date, R. Rasjidin, S. Mobin, H. Moria, and A. Baqui, “Biofuel from algae- is it a viable alternative?”,
in Advances in biofuel production: algae and aquatic plants, edited by B. Gikonyo (Apple Academic Press Inc.,
Toronto and New Jersey, 2014), pp. 107-120.
48. M. R. Tredici, Photobiology of microalgae mass cultures: understanding the tools for the next green revolution.
Biofuels 1, 143–162 (2010).
49. É. C. Francisco, D. B. Neves, E. Jacob-Lopes, T. T. Franco, Microalgae as feedstock for biodiesel production:
carbon dioxide sequestration, lipid production and biofuel quality. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 85, 395–403
(2010).
50. S. Ferrón, D. T. Ho, Z. I. Johnson, M. E. Huntley, Air-water fluxes of N2O and CH4 during microalgae
(Staurosira sp.) cultivation in an open raceway pond. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 10842–10848 (2012).
51. IPCC. Working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report, Climate change 2013: the physical
science basis.
52. M. Poth, D. D. Focht, N Kinetic Analysis of N2O Production by Nitrosomonas europaea: an examination of
nitrifier denitrification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 49, 1134–41 (1985).

020084-12
53. K. D. Fagerstone, J. C. Quinn, T. H. Bradley, S. K. De Long, and A. J. Marchese, Quantitative measurement of
direct nitrous oxide emissions from microalgae cultivation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 9449–9456 (2011).
54. B. Guieysse, M. Plouviez, M. Coilhac, L. Cazali, Nitrous oxide (N2O) production in axenic Chlorella vulgaris
microalgae cultures: evidence, putative pathways, and potential environmental impacts. Biogeosciences 10,
6737–6746 (2013).
55. M. Plouviez, A. Shilton, M. A. Packer, and B. Guieysse, N2O emissions during microalgae outdoor cultivation
in 50 L column photobioreactors, Algal Research 26, 348-353 (2017).
56. K. H. Bowmer and W.A. Muirhead, Inhibition of algal photosynthesis to control pH and reduce ammonia
volatilization from rice floodwater. Fertil. Res. 13, 13-29 (1987).
57. T. M. Mata, A. A. Martins, N. S. Caetano, Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications: A review,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14, 217-232 (2010).
58. S. Brusca, F. Famoso, R. Lanzafame and M. Messina, A Site Selection Model to Identify Optimal Locations for
Microalgae Biofuel Production Facilities in Sicily (Italy), Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 12, 16058-16067 (2017).
59. B. Abdullah, S. A. F. S. Muhammad, Z. Shokravi, S. Ismail, K. A. Kassim, A. N. Mahmood, M. M. A. Aziz,
Fourth generation biofuel: a review on risks and mitigation strategies, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 107, 37-50
(2019).
60. Y. S. Chung, J. W. Lee, and C. H. Chung, Molecular challenges in microalgae towards cost-effective production
of quality biodiesel. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74, 139–144 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.048
61. P. Tandon and Q. Jin, Microalgae culture enhancement through key microbial approaches, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 80, 1089-99 (2017).
62. J. P. Hewett, A. K. Wolfe, R. A. Bergmann, S. C. Stelling, K. I. Davis, Human health and environmental risks
posed by synthetic biology R&D for energy applications: a literature analysis, Appl Biosaf 21, 177-184 (2016)
63. S. J. Szyjka, S. Mandal, N. G. Schoepp, B. M. Tyler, C B. Yohn, Y. S. Poon et al, Evaluation of phenotype
stability and ecological risk of a genetically engineered alga in open pond production, Algal Res. 24, 378-386
(2017).

06 July 2024 12:11:46

64. J. M. Tiedje, R. K. Colwell, Y. L. Grossman, R. E. Hodson, R. E. Lenski, R. N. Mack, and P. J. Regal, The
planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms—Ecological considerations and recommendations.
Ecology 70, 298-315 (1989).
65. J. V. Villarreal, C. Burgués, and C. Rösch, Acceptability of genetically engineered algae biofuels in Europe:
opinions of experts and stakeholders. Biotechnol. Biofuels 13, 92 (2020).

020084-13