Cited by 42Algal biology and biofuel productionBiofuel production and bioconversionAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

Assessing the stability and techno-economic implications for wet storage of harvested microalgae to manage seasonal variability

Open access
Wendt, Lynn M., Kinchin, Christopher, Wahlen, Bradley D., Davis, Ryan, Dempster, Thomas A., Gerken, Henri·2019·Biotechnology for Biofuels

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Seasonal variation in microalgae production is a significant challenge to developing cost-competitive algae biofuels. Summer production can be three to five times greater than winter production, which could result in winter biomass shortages and summer surpluses at algae biorefineries. While the high water content (80%, wet basis) of harvested microalgae biomass makes drying an expensive approach to preservation, it is not an issue for ensiling. Ensiling relies on lactic acid fermentation to create anaerobic acidic conditions, which limits further microbial degradation. This study explores the feasibility of preserving microalgae biomass through wet anaerobic storage ensiling over 30 and 180 days of storage, and it presents a techno-economic analysis that considers potential cost implications. RESULTS: biomass untreated (anaerobic) or supplemented with 0.5% sulfuric acid underwent robust lactic acid fermentation (lactic acid content of 6-9%, dry basis) lowering the pH to 4.2. Dry matter losses after 30 days ranged from 10.8 to 15.5% depending on the strain and treatment without additional loss over the next 150 days. Long-term storage of microalgae biomass resulted in lactic acid concentrations that remained high (6%, dry basis) with a low pH (4.2-4.6). Detailed biochemical composition revealed that protein and lipid content remained unaffected by storage while carbohydrate content was reduced, with greater dry matter loss associated with greater reduction in carbohydrate content, primarily affecting glucan content. Techno-economic analysis comparing wet storage to drying and dry storage demonstrated the cost savings of this approach. The most realistic dry storage scenario assumes a contact drum dryer and aboveground carbon steel storage vessels, which translates to a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $3.72/gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE), whereas the most realistic wet storage scenario, which includes belowground, covered wet storage pits translates to an MFSP of $3.40/GGE. CONCLUSIONS: Microalgae biomass can be effectively preserved through wet anaerobic storage, limiting dry matter loss to below 10% over 6 months with minimal degradation of carbohydrates and preservation of lipids and proteins. Techno-economic analysis indicates that wet storage can reduce overall biomass and fuel costs compared to drying and dry storage.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13068-019-1420-0

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Pienkos PT, editor. Algal biomass conversion. BETO 2017 project peer review. Denver, CO. 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wendt, L. M., Kinchin, C., Wahlen, B. D., Davis, R., Dempster, T. A., & Gerken, H.
Affiliations
  • Idaho National Laboratory (US)
  • National Laboratory of the Rockies (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wendt, Lynn M.
Venue
Biotechnology for Biofuels
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
80-80
ISSN
1754-6834 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944491265
Cited by
42
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biotechnology for Biofuels (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)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bioenergy Technologies Office (DE-AC07-05ID14517, DE-AC36-08GO28308)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
silage fermentation, anaerobic storage, lactic acid fermentation, seasonal variation, algal biofuels, techno-economic analysis, dry matter loss, carbohydrate degradation, glucan, sulfuric acid treatment, biomass drying, storage pits, minimum fuel selling price

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