Cited by 97Algal biology and biofuel productionMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionBioeconomy and Sustainability Development

Microalgal biorefineries: a systematic review of technological trade-offs and innovation pathways

Open access
Geng, Yucong, Shaukat, Alishba, Azhar, Wania, Raza, Qurat-Ul-Ain, Tahir, Ayesha, Abideen, Muhammad Zain ul, Zia, Muhammad Abu Bakar, Bashir, Muhammad Amjad +1 more·2025·Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts

Abstract

This review critically examines the entire value chain of microalgal biorefineries, with the central aim of elucidating the key technological, economic, and environmental enablers and barriers that govern their transition from pilot-scale demonstrations to commercially viable, circular-economy applications. A systematic literature search was conducted across five major scientific databases using predefined Boolean strings: "algal biorefineries," "microalgae biofuel," "techno-economic analysis," "life-cycle assessment," and "bioproduct recovery." Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed studies and authoritative policy documents published between January 2007 and March 2025 that provided empirical data on upstream cultivation, midstream processing, and downstream conversion, as well as techno-economic assessments (TEA) and life-cycle analyses (LCA). Exclusion criteria included non-English commentaries, purely theoretical models without experimental validation, and studies that focused exclusively on single-product streams. Unlike previous reviews that address isolated segments of the algal biorefinery pipeline, this work delivers a novel, integrative framework that synthesizes recent advances across cultivation modes, genetic and metabolic engineering, AI-enabled optimization, and IoT-driven monitoring. This review critically evaluates the trade-offs between CAPEX and OPEX, energy penalties associated with harvesting and drying, and inconsistencies in LCA to identify, where performance improvements yield the most significant economic and environmental returns. Finally, this review proposes a targeted research roadmap, spanning multivariate strain engineering, hybrid cultivation architectures, low-energy harvesting technologies, cascade-compatible fractionation platforms, standardized LCA/TEA protocols, and supportive policy mechanisms, that charts a clear path toward overcoming current bottlenecks. This comprehensive, evidence-based synthesis aims to inform both academic research and industrial strategy, thereby advancing the field of sustainable algal biorefineries.

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/s13068-025-02694-7

Cites

145 of 145 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

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?

  • Harvesting alone can account for 20%-30% of overall costs.

    “In particular, harvesting alone can account for 20%–30% of overall costs, while the combined costs of harvesting and extraction often exceed 50%–70% of OPEX, depending on the species cultivated and the technological route adopted (Tan et al., 2020; Geng et al., 2025).”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Geng et al., 2025

    The “Midstream challenges: harvesting and dewatering” section says harvesting accounts for up to 25–30% of total process energy consumption and contributes to operating costs. It does not say harvesting accounts for 20–30% of overall costs; the claim applies an energy percentage to a different measure. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The combined costs of harvesting and extraction often exceed 50%-70% of OPEX, depending on the species cultivated and the technological route adopted.

    “In particular, harvesting alone can account for 20%–30% of overall costs, while the combined costs of harvesting and extraction often exceed 50%–70% of OPEX, depending on the species cultivated and the technological route adopted (Tan et al., 2020; Geng et al., 2025).”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Geng et al., 2025

    The Midstream challenges section says harvesting uses up to 25–30% of total process energy, not 20–30% of overall costs. The Downstream challenges section says extraction and fractionation increase OPEX, but neither section gives a combined harvesting-and-extraction share of 50–70% of OPEX. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 146 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [129]Ungureanu N, Vladut V, Biris S. Capitalization of wastewatergrown algae in bioethanol production. Engin Rur Dev. 2020. 10.22616/ERDev2020.19.TF507. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geng, Y., Shaukat, A., Azhar, W., Raza, Q.-U.-A., Tahir, A., Abideen, M. Z. U., Zia, M. A. B., Bashir, M. A., & Rehim, A.
Affiliations
  • Chengdu Normal University (CN)
  • University of Sargodha (PK)
  • Emerson University, Multan (PK)
  • University of the Punjab (PK)
  • Bahauddin Zakariya University (PK)
Corresponding author
  • Bashir, Muhammad Amjad
  • Rehim, Abdur
Venue
Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
Published
2025-08-15
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
93-93
ISSN
2731-3654 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413257253
Cited by
96
References
146
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 12
FWCI
4.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, China (S202514389095; 202514389038)
  • Chengdu Normal University (2024XJCXXSY3)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Keywords
microalgae biorefinery, microalgal biofuels, techno-economic analysis, life cycle assessment, algae cultivation, bioproduct recovery, circular economy, innovation pathways, research roadmap

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