Advancements and challenges in microalgal protein production: a sustainable alternative to conventional protein sources
Open accessAbstract
The increasing global demand for sustainable protein sources necessitates the exploration of alternative solutions beyond traditional livestock and crop-based proteins. Microalgae present a promising alternative due to their high protein content, rapid biomass accumulation, and minimal land and water requirements. Furthermore, their ability to thrive on non-arable land and in wastewater systems enhances their sustainability and resource efficiency. Despite these advantages, scalability and economical feasibility remain major challenges in microalgal protein production. This review explores recent advancements in microalgal protein cultivation and extraction technologies, including pulsed electric field, ultrasound-assisted extraction, enzyme-assisted extraction, and microwave-assisted extraction. These innovative techniques have significantly improved protein extraction efficiency, purity, and sustainability, while addressing cell wall disruption and protein recovery challenges. Additionally, the review examines protein digestibility and bioavailability, particularly in the context of human nutrition and aquafeed applications. A critical analysis of life cycle assessment studies highlights the environmental footprint and economical feasibility of microalgal protein production compared to conventional protein sources. Although microalgal protein production requires significant energy inputs, advancements in biorefinery approaches, carbon dioxide sequestration, and industrial integration can help mitigate these limitations. Finally, this review outlines key challenges and future research directions, emphasizing the need for cost reduction strategies, genetic engineering for enhanced yields, and industrial-scale process optimization. By integrating innovative extraction techniques with biorefinery models, microalgal proteins hold immense potential as a sustainable, high-quality protein source for food, feed, and nutraceutical applications.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
While current costs remain higher than those for traditional protein sources, advances in cultivation technologies, energy efficiency, and economies of scale are expected to reduce these gaps, supporting the positioning of algal peptides as a sustainable and viable option within future protein and nutraceutical markets.
“While current costs remain higher than those for traditional protein sources, advances in cultivation technologies, energy efficiency, and economies of scale are expected to reduce these gaps, supporting the positioning of algal peptides as a sustainable and viable option within future protein and nutraceutical markets [181].”
From Navigating the potential of algal peptides: health effects, market applications, and scientific challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [181]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAli et al. (2025) also observed that microalgae require significantly less land than traditional protein sources, using 95% less land than livestock and 60% less land than soy protein.
“Ali et al. (2025) also observed that microalgae require significantly less land than traditional protein sources, using 95% less land than livestock and 60% less land than soy protein.”
From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Ali et al., 2025
Life-cycle assessments point to lower carbon footprints for microalgal protein production compared with conventional animal proteins when renewable energy and CO2 recycling are integrated.
“Life-cycle assessments similarly point to lower carbon footprints for microalgal protein production compared with conventional animal proteins when renewable energy and CO2 recycling are integrated [181].”
From Navigating the potential of algal peptides: health effects, market applications, and scientific challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [181]
These production costs exceed those of conventional plant proteins, which typically cost a few dollars per kilogram, reflecting higher energy, harvesting, and downstream processing demands.
“These production costs exceed those of conventional plant proteins, which typically cost a few dollars per kilogram, reflecting higher energy, harvesting, and downstream processing demands [181].”
From Navigating the potential of algal peptides: health effects, market applications, and scientific challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [181]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 146 · Cited by 88
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [29]Nishihara G, Fu C. Illuminating Nature’s green alchemy: an in-depth exploration of photosynthesis and its ecological implications. Eastern-European J Eng Technol. 2024;3(1):17–24.
- [65]Kuhavichanan A, Kusolkumbot P, Sirisattha S, Areeprasert C. Mechanical extraction of protein solution from microalgae by ultrasonication. IOP Conf Series: Earth Environ Sci. 2018;159(1):012009.
- [85]Janczyk P, Wolf C, Souffrant WB. Evaluation of nutritional value and safety of the green microalgae Chlorella vulgaris treated with novel processing methods. Arch Zootech. 2005;8:132–47.
- [141]Akintuyi OB. Adaptive AI in precision agriculture: A review: investigating the use of self-learning algorithms in optimizing farm operations based on real-time data. Res J Multidisciplinary Stud. 2024;7(02):016–30.
- Authors
- Ali, S. S., Al-Tohamy, R., Al-Zahrani, M., Schagerl, M., Kornaros, M., & Sun, J.
- Affiliations
- Jiangsu University (CN)
- King Abdulaziz University (SA)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- University of Patras (GR)
- Corresponding author
- Ali, Sameh S.
- Schagerl, Michael
- Sun, Jianzhong
- Venue
- Microbial Cell Factories
- Published
- 2025-03-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-61
- ISSN
- 1475-2859 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11892233
- OpenAlex
- W4408267892
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 146
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 25
- FWCI
- 4.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Microbial Cell Factories (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of Vienna
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Seaweed-derived Bioactive Compounds
- Keywords
- microalgal proteins, sustainable protein sources, protein extraction, pulsed electric field, ultrasound-assisted extraction, enzymatic extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, cell wall damage, protein digestibility, bioavailability, aquaculture feed, life cycle assessment, biorefinery, CO2 sequestration, genetic engineering, industrial-scale production, nutraceuticals
- MeSH terms
- Biotechnology, Humans, Biomass, Microalgae
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
