Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76 (2011) 131147
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compag
Review
Application of computational uid dynamics for modeling and designing
photobioreactors for microalgae production: A review
J.P. Bitog
a,b
, I.-B. Lee
a,
, C.-G. Lee
c
, K.-S. Kim
d
, H.-S. Hwang
a
, S.-W. Hong
a
,
I.-H. Seo
a
, K.-S. Kwon
a
, E. Mostafa
a,e
a
Department of Rural Systems Engineering, Research Institute for Agriculture and Life Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
Seoul National University, 599, Gwanakno, Gwanakgu, 151-921 Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering, Nueva Vizcaya State University, 3700 Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines
c
Institute of Industrial Biotechnology, Department of Biological Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 402-751, Republic of Korea
d
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University, 599, Gwanakno, Gwanakgu, 151-921 Seoul, Republic of Korea
e
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, 12613 Giza, Egypt
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 August 2010
Received in revised form
29 December 2010
Accepted 24 January 2011
Keywords:
Computational uid dynamics (CFD)
Microalgae
Photobioreactors
Computer simulation
a b s t r a c t
The past decade has seen a rapid increase of numerical simulation studies on photobioreactors (PBRs).
Developments in computational uid dynamics (CFD) and the availability of more powerful computers
have paved the way for the modeling and designing PRBs, a strategy that was abandoned from the late
1970s until the 1980s because of its complexity. This paper reviews the present status of numerical mod-
eling for PBRs as well the application of CFD in the design of PBR for the mass production of microalgae.
Emphasis is onthe major breakthroughs inPBRdesignthat may leadto scaling-up. Most simulations have
been conducted in bubble column PBRs, which offer many advantages. Their geometry is simple in design
with no moving parts, and they are easy to construct and operate. A majority of published simulation
studies used two-phase models (air and water) and employed the EulerianEulerian mixture model. CFD
models have been vigorously validated by experimental and laboratory studies, with most claiming to
have achieved good results. However, current PBR scale-up projects still need to resolve hydrodynamic
issues within the PBR, in order to optimize factors for microalgal growth. To create ideal conditions inside
the PBR, the main factors that inuence microalgal growth such as light intensity and distribution, gas
injection and mixing, and hydrodynamics/ow pattern which are the key for design and scale up must
be thoroughly understood.
The present practice of PBR design using CFD can be considered both an art and a science because of
some numerical simulation issues which are yet to be resolved and the complexity of uid mechanics
inside the PBRs. Nonetheless, CFD has proven to be an effective tool in predicting the complex inherent
phenomena in the PBRs. The CFD technique has shown to be very promising to successfully design and
develop PBRs which can be commercially available for scale-up.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
2. Optimal factors for microalgal growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
2.1. Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
2.2. CO
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
2.3. Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
2.4. pH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3. Designing PBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.1. Current PBR designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 880 4586; fax: +82 2 873 2087.
E-mail addresses: jessppb2001@yahoo.com (J.P. Bitog), iblee@snu.ac.kr
(I.-B. Lee).
0168-1699/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compag.2011.01.015
Author's personal copy
132 J.P. Bitog et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76 (2011) 131147
3.2. Bubble column and air-lift PBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.3. Important design aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.3.1. Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.3.2. Light penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.3.3. Gas injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4. Computational uid dynamics (CFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.1. Flow modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.1.1. Turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.2. Species modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.2.1. EulerianEulerian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.2.2. LagrangianEulerian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.2.3. Volume of uid (VOF). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.3. Light modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.4. Numerical issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.4.1. Different representation of multiphase/turbulence models, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5. CFD modeling of PBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.1. Specic focus of these studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.1. Mixing studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.1.2. Light simulation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.1.3. Species modeling studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.2. Challenges in PBR design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.2.1. CFD design for light distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.2.2. CFD design for gas distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.3. Opportunities for CFD approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
1. Introduction
Microalgae are a new promising source of biodiesel. They are
a diverse group of prokaryotic and eukaryotic photosynthetic
microorganisms with a simple structure that allows them to grow
rapidly (Li et al., 2008b). In recent reviews in Patil et al. (2008) and
Chisti (2007), microalgae appeared to be the only source of renew-
able biodiesel capable of meeting the global demand for transport
fuels, with the potential to completely displace the use of fossil
fuels (Table1). Under optimal growingconditions, somemicroalgae
species can produce and accumulate hydrocarbons up to 3070% of
their dry weight, and that the high oil content of some algae species
allows themto produce 1000 times as much oil as soybeans grown
on the same amount of land (Kong et al., 2007). The oil content in
microalgae can exceed 80% of the weight of the dry biomass, but
commonly achieved oil levels are from 20 to 50% (Metting, 1996;
Spolaore et al., 2006) (see also Table 2).
Other benets from microalgae include their use as a healthy
food, as producers of useful compounds (Borowitzka, 1999), biol-
ters to remove nutrients and other pollutants from wastewaters
(Sawayama et al., 1994) and as indicators for environmental
change. They are also commonly used in space technology and
as laboratory research systems (Ai et al., 2008; Chaumont, 1993).
Table 1
Comparison of some sources of biodiesel.
Crop Oil yield (L/ha)
Corn 172
Soybean 446
Canola 1190
Jathropa 1892
Coconut 2689
Oil palm 5950
Microalgae
a
136,900
Microalgae
b
58,700
Source: Chisti (2007).
a
70% oil (by wt) in biomass.
b
30% oil (by wt) in biomass.
Microalgae are also commercially cultivated for pharmaceuticals,
nutraceuticals, cosmetics and aquaculture (Ranjbar et al., 2008;
Pulz and Gross, 2004; Olaizola, 2003; Molina et al., 1999). Various
commercial applications of microalgae and microalgal biotechnol-
ogy developments have been reviewed by (Spolaore et al., 2006;
Wen and Chen, 2003; Apt and Behrens, 1999; Radmer and Parker,
1994).
The production of microalgae is not new; it dates to World War
II, whenthe Germans consideredproductioninopenponds for food
supplements (Ugwu et al., 2008; Borowitzka, 1999). In the 1950s,
algae were found to sequester CO
2
in the atmosphere, propelling
interest in mass production. Oil extraction frommicroalgae started
during the gas supply scare inthe 1970s (Barkley et al., 1987). How-
ever, further research on mass production and oil extraction were
hampered because of high production costs. Currently, amidst the
reality of increasing energy demand and depleting energy sources,
nding new alternative energy sources is an imperative and the
ideaof oil extractionfrommicroalgaeis againgivenmuchattention.
Today, advance microalgae researches both in eld and laboratory
are underway.
Table 2
Oil content of some microalgae.
Microalgae Oil content (% dry wt)
Botryococcus braunili 2575
Chlorella sp. 2832
Crypthecodinium cohnii 20
Cylindrotheca sp. 1637
Cylindrotheca sp. 23
Dunaliella primolecta 2533
Isochrysis sp. >20
Monallanthus salina 2035
Nannochloris sp. 3168
Neochloris oleoabundans 3554
Nitzschia sp. 4547
Phaeodactylum tricornutum 2030
Schizochytrium sp. 5077
Tetraselmis sueica 1523
Source: Chisti (2007).
Author's personal copy
J.P. Bitog et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76 (2011) 131147 133
The success of mass production of microalgae for biodiesel
depends greatly on the design and performance of the PBRs. Con-
sidering also economic factors, only PBR systems are now widely
recognized for mass production aside from raceway ponds (Chisti,
2007; Molina, 1999; Tredici, 1999; Miron et al., 1999; Terry and
Raymond, 1985). Basically, a PBR is a bioreactor that incorporates
some type of light source. Virtually any translucent container could
be calleda PBR; however the termis more commonly usedtodene
a closed system, as opposed to anopentank or pond. Growing algae
in PBRs reduces risk of contamination, improves the reproducibil-
ity of cultivation conditions, provides control over hydrodynamics
and temperature, and allows appropriate technical design (Pulz,
2001). Because PBR systems are closed, all essential nutrients must
be introduced into the system to allow growth and cultivation of
thealgae. APBRcanbeoperatedinbatchmode, but it is alsopossi-
ble to introduce a continuous streamof sterilized water containing
nutrients, air, and carbon dioxide. As the algae grows, excess grow-
ing culture overows and is harvested. Without sufcient care,
continuous bioreactors can quickly collapse, but once they are suc-
cessfully started, they can continue operating for long periods. An
advantage of this type of algal culture is that microalgae is main-
tained in log phase, which generally gives a higher nutrient content
than old, senescent algae. The maximum productivity for a biore-
actor occurs when the growth culture exchange rate, or time to
exchange one volume of liquid, is equal to the doubling time in
mass or volume of algae.
In computer simulation studies, computational uid dynamics
(CFD) technique has been in the forefront in designing photobiore-
actors (PBRs) where microalgae are cultivated. The advent of CFDin
the 1970s and its continuous development have paved the way for
the designanddevelopment of various PBRs as productionsystems.
The availability of high-tech computers has now allowed detailed
analysis of PBRs for microalgal growth, from the simplest level
to the most complex. Flow characteristics inside the PBRs which
are very critical in the making PBR design can now be completely
analyzed and visualized.
However, despite the availability of these PBRs which have been
under continuous development for the past decade, only a few can
be practically used for mass production. Many limitations still hin-
der their use, especially during scale-up (Ugwu et al., 2008). The
scale-up process is still poorly understood because of the complex-
ity and of ow patterns under different sets of design parameters
such as diameter, height to diameter ratio, gas sparger type and
physical properties of the liquid (Mouza et al., 2004; Wild et al.,
2003; Deckwer, 1992). PBR development is still one of the major
steps that must be undertakenfor efcient mass cultivationof algae
(Ugwu et al., 2008; Chisti, 2007). However, with the advanced CFD
technique, the complex ow patterns in relation the PBR designs
andoperationarenowbeingthoroughlyinvestigated, andsolutions
to most of the problems were proposed.
Therefore, theobjectiveof this reviewis topresent conciseinfor-
mation on the status of PBR design and progress on the application
of CFD in the PBR design to be suitable for scale-up.
2. Optimal factors for microalgal growth
2.1. Light
Since microalgae grow photosynthetically, light intensity is
one of the most important limiting factors (Oncel and Sukan,
2008; Oncel and Akpolat, 2006; Kirk, 1994; Kcmond et al., 1990;
Kchmond, 1988). Algal culture systems can be illuminated by arti-
cial light, solar light or both. Naturally illuminated algal culture
systems with large illumination surface areas include open ponds,
at-plate and horizontal/serpentine tubular airlift, or inclined
tubular PBRs (Chisti, 2007). Flat plate PBRs are generally more ef-
cient at sunlight utilization than tubular PBRs because they have
a wider surface area (Tredici and Zittelli, 1998). Several attempts
have been made to increase closed-based systems (tanks, hang-
ing plastic bags) to 50100l, but because the light requirement
cannot be satised, successful biomass development has not been
possible (Pulz, 2001). In outdoor cultivation, the ultimate source
of light is the sun, which cannot be controlled; therefore, studies
on the optimization of light for PBRs are usually done indoors with
articial illumination. Generally, laboratory-scale PBRs are inter-
nally or externally articially illuminatedwithuorescent lamps or
other light distributors. To successfully use articial light for pho-
tosynthesis, photons with wavelengths between 600 and 700nm
must be generated. A comparison of articial light sources includ-
ing cool uorescent, incandescent, halogen, AllnGap II (aluminum
indium gallium phosphide with peak wavelength of 643nm) and
light emitting diodes (LEDs) was conducted (Kommareddy and
Anderson, 2003). AllnGapII LEDs werefoundtobethemost efcient
and economical light source. They emit more than 98% of their light
between600and700nm. The light intensity requirement is depen-
dent on cell density. Higher cell densities will result in the need for
higher light intensities (Fan et al., 2007). Every microalgal species
has an optimal light requirement, and when this is exceeded, their
growth is retarded. Above a certain value, light intensity actually
reduces the biomass growthrate. This phenomenon, knownas pho-
toinhibition, occurs when microalgae become inhibited at light
intensities only slightly greater than the level at which the spe-
cic growth rate peaks (Oncel and Akpolat, 2006; Camacho et al.,
2003; Jansen et al., 2003; Pulz, 2001). However, few references are
available on photo-adaptation, light inhibition or saturation effects
in PBRs. Photoinhibitory processes are time-dependent, and irre-
versible destruction will occur after few minutes of light stress,
with damage exceeding 50% after 1020min (Pulz, 2001). In tubu-
lar PBRs, photoinhibitionwas observedtooccur duringtheperiodof
peak irradiation, and photosynthetic acidity of the cells recovered
after few hours (Molina et al., 2001). Elimination of photoinhibi-
tion or its shift to higher light intensities would greatly increase the
average daily growth rate of algal biomass. An additional unsolved
problem is how to avoid photorespiration, which decreases the
photosynthetic efciency (Pulz, 2001). Photorespiration tends to
occur when there is a high concentration of oxygen relative to
carbon dioxide.
2.2. CO
2
Carbon dioxide is the usual carbon source for photosynthetic
culture of microalgae. As the carbon is consumed, oxygen is pro-
duced by photolysis of water and released into the culture uid
(Molina et al., 1999). Since algae live on a high concentration of car-
bon dioxide, greenhouse gases (GHG), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
) and
pollutants intheatmospherefromdifferent sources will bethealgal
nutrients. Algae production facilities can thus be fed with exhaust
gases fromcombustions of fossil fuels to signicantly increase pro-
ductivity. Several studies has beenreportedelsewhere utilizingue
gas as carbon source, however, the toxicity of the ue gas compo-
nents has not been well-documented. In the study by Negoro et al.
(1991), sulfur and nitrogen oxide (SO
x
, NO
x
), which were present in
ue gas inhibits algal growth. Later, they found out (Negoro et al.,
1993) that growth productivity of microalgae from ue gas and
pure CO
2
was barely inuenced by the content of SO
x
, NO
x
. Sim-
ilar study by Hauck et al. (1996) reported that low level of NO
x
,
typically present in scrubbed ue gas did not inhibit the growth
of Chlorella. The effects of CO
2
concentration on membrane lipid
composition, in addition to the effects on photosynthesis was also
emphasized in some studies (Tzuzuki et al., 1990). The amount of
CO
2
needed for growth varies according to microalgal species and
Author's personal copy
134 J.P. Bitog et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76 (2011) 131147
Table 3
CO
2
tolerance and optimum CO
2
concentration of various microalgae species.
Species Maximum tolerance of CO
2
concentration Optimum CO
2
concentration References
Cyanidium caldarium 100% Seckbach et al. (1971)
Scenedesmus sp. 80% 1020% Hanagata et al. (1992)
Chlorococcum littorale 60% Kodama et al. (1993)
Synechococcus elongatus 60% Miyairi (1995)
Euglena gracilis 45% 5% Nakano et al. (1996)
Chlorella sp. 40% 10% Hanagata et al. (1992)
Eudorina sp. 20% Hanagata et al. (1992)
Dunaliella tertiolecta 15% Nagase et al. (1998)
Nannochloris sp. 15% Yoshihara et al. (1996)
Chlamydomonas sp. 15% Miura et al. (1993)
Tetraselmis sp. 14% Matsumoto et al. (1996)
Source: Ono and Cuello (2003).
PBR type. An airlift bench-type reactor with helical ow promot-
ers was found out to have lower gas requirements for species of
Porphyridium than the typical bubble and airlift reactors, implying
a lower cost in air compression, and in air and CO
2
requirements
(Merchuk et al., 2000). However, the CO
2
requirement of microal-
gae as inuencedbyPBRtype still needmore further investigations.
In terms of maximumCO
2
tolerance, some species can survive with
very high CO
2
concentration, but usually lower CO
2
concentration
is required for their maximum growth (Table 3).
2.3. Temperature
Algal growth is also temperature dependent, requiring an opti-
mal value for maximal growth. Temperature is also important
for the dissociation of carbon-containing molecules, making the
carbon available for photosynthesis (Kommareddy and Anderson,
2005). Temperature inuences respiration and photorespiration
more strongly than photosynthesis. However, if CO
2
or light is lim-
iting factor for photosynthesis, the inuence of temperature can be
insignicant (Pulz, 2001; Kchmond, 1988; Kcmondet al., 1990). The
optimal temperature for microalgae cultures is generally between
20 and 24