Biomass performance and stability of 5-year outdoor microalgal cultivation for CO2 removal from cement flue gas
Abstract
The study evaluated removal of industrial CO2 from cement flue gas using algal cultivation. Local polycultures were grown in an up-scaled outdoor photobioreactor over 5 years in northern Europe. Algal biomass was harvested 2–3 times per week and the closed panel system was re-filled with seawater amended with nutrients. Flue gas was fed to the photobioreactor circulatory system in one direction or re-circulated. Removal efficiency of CO2 averaged 9 % in non-recirculation and 17 % in re-circulation modes and reached 20–60 % under best cultivation conditions. Recovery of carbon into algal biomass reached up to 10 g−2d−1 in non-recirculation mode. Biomass performance was explained by circulation mode and shift of polyculture traits. Stability of biomass quality was shown over seasons, with higher relative content of protein in autumn. Toxic elements in biomass were below legal thresholds for upcycling. The study shows feasibility of algal solutions for conversion of waste, applied in temperate climate.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Microalgal cultivation in an outdoor photobioreactor removed 9-17% of industrial CO2 from cement flue gas, with efficiencies reaching 20-60% under optimal conditions and carbon recovery up to 10 g m2 d−1.
“Previous study demonstrated that microalgal cultivation in an outdoor photobioreactor removed 9–17% of industrial CO2 from cement flue gas, with efficiencies reaching 20–60% under optimal conditions and carbon recovery up to 10 g m2 d−1 [7].”
Cites
A RAPID METHOD OF TOTAL LIPID EXTRACTION AND PURIFICATION
Bligh, E. G., & Dyer, W. J. (1959) · Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology · doi:10.1139/o59-099 · Cited by 54,751 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…Chloroform:MeOH method (total lipids, TL), NaOH and protein assay (total proteins, TP, Bio-Rad DC Protein Assay), and the Phenol-H 2 SO 4 method (total carbohydrates, TC) modified by Olofsson et al. (2019) based on previous literature (Bligh and Dyer, 1959; Dubois et al., 1956; Lowry et al., 1951).”
Effect of temperature and light on the growth of algae species: A review
Singh, S. P., & Singh, P. (2015) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.024 · Cited by 1,017 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Light and temperature directly affect the growth rate of microalgae and are considered as the main explanatory factors for algal performance in outdoor systems (Singh and Singh, 2015).”
Current Status of the Algae Production Industry in Europe: An Emerging Sector of the Blue Bioeconomy
Araújo, R., Vázquez Calderón, F., Sánchez López, J., Azevedo, I. C., Bruhn, A., Fluch, S., Garcia Tasende, M., Ghaderiardakani, F., Ilmjärv, T., Laurans, M., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.626389 · Cited by 653 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Most of the successful outdoor systems are in warm temperate zones and sub-tropical areas, where environmental conditions are stable (Araújo et al., 2021).”
InfluentialMicroalgal bioreactors: Challenges and opportunities
Xu, L., Weathers, P. J., Xiong, X., & Liu, C. (2009) · Engineering in Life Sciences · doi:10.1002/elsc.200800111 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Comparison of Four Outdoor Pilot-Scale Photobioreactors
de Vree, J. H., Bosma, R., Janssen, M., Barbosa, M. J., & Wijffels, R. H. (2015) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0400-2 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Microalgal biomass production pathways: evaluation of life cycle environmental impacts
Zaimes, G. G., & Khanna, V. (2013) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/1754-6834-6-88 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
A systems approach for CO2 fixation from flue gas by microalgae—theory review
Kroumov, A. D., Módenes, A. N., Trigueros, D. E. G., Espinoza-Quiñones, F. R., Borba, C. E., Scheufele, F. B., & Hinterholz, C. L. (2016) · Process Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2016.05.019 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wu, Y., Shan, L., Zhao, W., & Lu, X. (2025) · Marine Drugs · doi:10.3390/md23050184 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lindehoff, E., Mattsson, L., Olofsson, M., Svensson, F., Farnelid, H., & Legrand, C.
- Venue
- Bioresource Technology Reports
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-02
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- 101730
- ISSN
- 2589-014X
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
