Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Life cycle assessment of algae biodiesel and its co-products

Edgard Gnansounou ⇑, Jegannathan Kenthorai Raman
Bioenergy and Energy Planning Research Group (BPE), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

h i g h l i g h t s

Protein and succinic acid could be valuable co-products for algae biodiesel industry.

Co-products from algae have less environmental impact than reference products.

Succinic acid production from algae has significant influence on impact reduction.

Protein extraction from algae has high energy demand.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There is a need to explore alternative energy sources to meet the future energy demand in a sustainable
Received 16 June 2015 way. Algae could be a potential feed stock for biodiesel and other co-products such as animal feed and
Received in revised form 24 September 2015 chemicals. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of such production system has to be assessed before any imple-
Accepted 5 October 2015
mentation at commercial scale. In this context, a prospective LCA of algae biorefinery considering
Available online 22 October 2015
selected multi-products (biodiesel, protein and succinic acid) was carried out to estimate the environ-
mental impact compared to a reference system. LCA results revealed less CO2 emissions and land use
Keywords:
for biodiesel, protein and succinic acid production system compared to that of only biodiesel and protein
Life cycle assessment
Algae biodiesel
production system from algae. The impact reduction was even more when compared with conventional
Protein diesel, soy protein and fossil based succinic acid system. A higher carbohydrate composition in algae
Succinic acid favors less CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption in the algae system compared to that of the refer-
Co-products ence system.
Biorefinery Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Global warming is a major issue that will lead to several harms
such as extreme weather conditions and sea level rise. Increase in
fossil fuel use results in high carbon dioxide emissions and con-
tributes significantly to global warming. Measures to reduce fossil
fuels use are under way for the past few decades via renewable
energy development such as solar, wind, hydro and biofuels. While
other energy forms could replace the fossil fuels in several sectors,
higher fossil energy use in transport sector could only be reduced
by few substitution options among which biofuels are the most
promising. With increase in policy reforms in the transport sector
to replace fossil fuels by biofuels, there has been a tremendous
interest in the development of biofuels across the world for the
past two decades [1]. Biofuels include bioethanol and biodiesel
⇑ Corresponding author at: Bioenergy and Energy Planning Research Group, EPFL
ENAC IIC GR-GN, GC A3 424 (Bâtiment GC), Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne,
Switzerland. Tel.: +41 216936027; fax: +41 21 69 32495.
E-mail address: edgard.gnansounou@epfl.ch (E. Gnansounou).
produced from edible biomass such as sugarcane, corn, rape seed,
palm etc., and non-edible biomass such as lignocellulosic residues
and algae. However, biofuels production from edible biomass is
believed to be one of the reasons for food price hike in recent years
[2] and therefore much research focus is given to non-edible based
biofuels.
Biodiesel could be produced from any type of oil such as soy-
bean, corn oil, palm or algal oil. However, algae oil is more attrac-
tive because of the algae capacity to yield more oil without
requiring large area of arable lands, scope for better strain
improvement and the capacity to enhance the value through co-
products [3]. Indeed, production of only biodiesel from algae would
not be economically feasible due to its relatively low value. There-
fore much research efforts are being dedicated to algal multi-
products system [4,5]. Algal biorefinery capable of producing die-
sel, ethanol as well as higher value added products could be an
option to address the economic challenge. Several value added
products could be produced from algae such as animal feed, health
care products, cosmetic products and biochemicals [6].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.043
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308
India is the fourth-largest fossil fuels consumer in the world
with a demand of nearly 3.7 million barrels oil equivalent per
day. Most of demand is for fuels used mainly in the transportation
and industrial sectors and for kerosene and LPG in the residential
and commercial sectors. India is the third-largest economy on
GDP in terms of purchasing power parity basis. With its dynamic
economic growth and modernization, energy demand in India will
continue to rise significantly in future. With rising energy demand
and increasing pollution being a main concern, Indian energy sec-
tor is exploring alternative energy sources to provide energy and to
reach renewable policy goals set by the government such as 20%
biofuels blending by 2017 in transport sector [7]. Several agricul-
tural residues such as rice straw, wheat straw, sugarcane tops
and leaves, bamboo etc., are available in India to produce bioetha-
nol and to blend with gasoline. However, there are a very limited
number of appropriate energy sources to produce biodiesel.
Ajayebi et al. suggested that algae could be potential feed stock
for biodiesel in India owing to availability of coastal line, industry
and the technology [8]. However, instead of valorising algae by
producing only biodiesel it may be economically promising to
explore other high value co-products such as animal feed and
bio-chemicals in order to utilize the full potential of algae compo-
sition [9,10].
Succinic acid is identified as one of the 30 top value products for
application in industry such as 1,4-butanediol, polyurethane, plas-
ticizers, resins, coatings, dyes & inks, pharmaceutical, food, cosmet-
ics, solvents and lubricants and de-icing solutions [11,12].
Industrial succinic acid currently available is from fossil source;
however, there is a high demand for this product due to the grow-
ing industrial application in India and China. The high demand,
volatile cost and high environmental burden of petroleum based
products favor introducing a bio-based succinic acid [13] that is
produced by the carbohydrate fermentation using bacterial spe-
cies. Biomass such as sugarcane [14], cassava [15], corn stalk
[16], wheat straw and orange peel [17] were explored as feedstock
for succinic acid production. Microalgae and macroalgae also show
a great potential to be a substrate for succinic acid production [18–
20] as algae could contain up to 15% carbohydrates depending on
the strains [19].
Livestock production is a very large industry in India that con-
tributed to nearly 4.1% of the total GDP during 2012–2013 [21]
and therefore the demand for animal feed in India is huge. India
is also an exporter of soybean meal and any additional protein
meal would be beneficial to the export market. Algae contain up
to 50% protein (dry weight basis) that could be a potential source
for animal feed production. In addition it could also provide several
health and marketing benefits in the livestock industry [19,22].
Considering the potential benefits that could be achieved from
algae and having the facilities to grow algae, related biorefinery
system could be an option for biodiesel and other value added
products in India [8,23]. However, the life cycle performance of
algae biorefinery systems is important to know in order to estab-
lish the environmental benefits over conventional products. In
recent years, several LCA studies have been reported on biodiesel
and co-products from algae and were the subject of the review
paper [24]. From the product point of view, glycerol has been con-
sidered as the co-product while solid residue was considered to
generate energy in [25,26,8]. In few studies, solid residue remain-
ing after oil extraction has been considered as protein supplement
[26,27]. Whereas, the solid residue has been envisaged as a substi-
tute for fertilizer in several studies [28–31]. Sortona et al. have
reported the effects of co-products on the life-cycle impacts of
microalgal biodiesel considering biodiesel, animal feed and
bioethanol products from algae lipid, protein and carbohydrate
fractions respectively [32]. Impact results suggested that more
quantity of co-products resulted in less environmental impact.
301
However a high amount of co-products may significantly alter
the impact results.
LCA of algal biorefinery has considered as products, biodiesel
from lipid fraction, animal feed from protein fraction and electric-
ity from the carbohydrate fraction [33]. It has been concluded that
the economic performance of algal production systems may be
improved by producing high-value compounds while improving
the environment performance of biorefinery could be achieved
by use of remaining fractions. On the other hand, Seth and Wangi-
kar [38] reported the comparative LCA of ethanol, succinic acid and
thermochemical products from algae. Both ethanol and succinic
acid processes demand less energy input but carbon loss through
fermentative respiration is 60–70%, whereas thermochemical pro-
cess have smaller carbon and energy losses yielding mixture of
products such as solid char, pyrolysis oil, and gaseous products.
From the above literature it is clear that algal biorefinery with mul-
tiproduct could be the way forward and there is a need to explore
the choice of other high value products that could incorporate in
algal biorefinery based on the market demand and environmental
performance [4,35,36]. Towards this context, LCA study consider-
ing biodiesel, succinic acid and protein from microalgae biorefinery
has not been reported so far and the aim of this study is to assess
the environmental performance of microalgal biorefinery with
such product options.
From the LCA point of view, it is important to consider a rele-
vant reference system against the system under study. While
coproducts are produced from biofuel feedstock, a representative
substitute product has to be selected in the reference system to
include significant GHG emission or savings from byproducts and
land use that could drastically influence the impact results
[28,37]. In addition for electricity use in the system, the local elec-
tric mix along with renewable energy mix in the grid was taken
into account to consider the overall energy mix [28]. In algal LCA
studies with biofuel and co-products such as biodiesel and docosa-
hexaenoic acid [38], ethanol and succinic acid [34], biodiesel and
algae meal [33] the relevant reference systems are not defined to
compare the impacts of algae biodiesel and coproducts with fossil
diesel and conventional products. This study emphasizes on com-
parison of an algal system with reference system based on the
products and co-products, along with land use change and local
electricity mix. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to perform
a prospective life cycle assessment related to algae biorefinery in
India considering major products such as biodiesel and high value
products such as protein supplement for animal feed and succinic
acid. The aim is to estimate the contribution to reducing fossil
energy depletion and GHG emissions.
2. Description of the process
A comparative LCA of two cases related to algae systems were
performed in this paper: (1) biodiesel and protein production sys-
tem, (2) biodiesel, protein and succinic acid production system.
The reference system for the former study is fossil diesel and soy-
bean protein production and for the latter it is fossil diesel, soybean
protein and fossil based succinic acid production. The processes
involved in the systems under study are explained in the following
paragraphs.
2.1. Algal production and harvest
Microalgae could be cultivated in sea water or freshwater. Tak-
ing into account the scarcity of fresh water in India and the large
scale biodiesel production capacity envisaged in this paper only
seawater algae strain (Chlorella vulgaris) was considered. Microal-
gae absorb CO2 for photosynthesis, therefore, source of carbon with
302 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308

Make-up Water

Electricity
Cultivation Construction
Materials
CO2 Raceway Ponds

Nutrients

Electricity
Settling DAF Centrifugation
Chitosan

Oil Extraction Electricity

Hexane Extracon Hexane

Co-products Handling Conversion

Carhohydrates & others Proteins Energy

Esterificaon
H2SO4
Anaerobic Animal Methanol
Digestion feed

Energy
Transesterification
Biogas Na(OH)
Electricity Methanol
upgrading

Gas Power
Heat
plant
Combustion
Engine

Solar energy CO2 Emissions Glycerol Wastewater

Fig. 1. System boundary of the algal biodiesel and animal feed production model.

higher concentrations than the atmospheric CO2 is required for an
economic algae cultivation system [39]. Carbon capture from flue
gas emissions, particularly from power plants that burn fossil fuels
could be a promising option to provide high concentration of CO2
(up to 20%) and lengthen carbon emissions life at the same time.
In this paper, a readily available CO2 stream previously cooled
down and stripped from NOX and SOX emissions that could be uti-
lized for the raceway ponds was assumed [8]. The composition of
Chlorella vulgaris (dry mass basis) was assumed to be [protein
(50%), carbohydrates (15%) and lipids (25%) others (10%)] [40].
After cultivation in race way ponds the biomass should be sepa-
rated from its growing medium. Several technical and conceptual
technologies were proposed for algal biomass harvest [39,41]. In
this study the harvesting stage has been modeled based on three
consecutive stages: settling tanks coupled with the cultivation
ponds, a dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit and centrifugation unit.
An organic coagulant (Chitosan) was considered to be used in the
DAF unit [42]. Dewatering, homogenization and pumping of liquids
were also included in the harvesting section.
2.2. Oil extraction and biodiesel production
Oil in the algae biomass was assumed to be extracted using hex-
ane solvent in a stripper column similar to that reported by
Stephenson et al. [43] with 91% extraction efficiency. For biodiesel
production, transesterification of lipids with methanol was
assumed to be performed in the presence of alkaline (KOH/NaOH)
catalysts. The free fatty acid (FFA) content of oil was considered to
be 7% and the materials and energy data required for processing oil
with 7% FFA to biodiesel using a two-step process (acid esterifica-
tion and alkali transesterification) modeled and reported in [44]
were used in this LCA study. The energy requirement for purifica-
tion of crude glycerol obtained in the biodiesel process is included
in the biodiesel section.
2.3. Algae protein production
The protein content of de-oiled algae biomass was assumed to
be separated using ethanol (95%) and methanol (5%) extraction
method reported in [45]. The protein extraction method is similar
to that of oil extraction method where the de-oiled algae are mixed
with solvent (ethanol and methanol) in a desired temperature
range (50–75 °C) and time (1–4 h). The extraction is carried out
several times to recover the maximum amount of protein and later
the solvent is recovered via evaporation. Therefore, it was assumed
that the same energy from oil extraction would be the energy
requirement for protein extraction process. The protein output
 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308 303

Make-up Water

Electricity
Cultivation Construction
Materials
CO2 Raceway Ponds

Nutrients

Electricity
Settling DAF Centrifugation
Chitosan

Oil Extraction Electricity

Hexane Extraction Hexane

Co-products Handling Conversion

Others Proteins Energy

Carhohydrates Esterification
H2SO4
Anaerobic Methanol
Extraction Saccharification
Digestion

Energy
Fermentation Transesterification
Biogas Animal feed Na(OH)
Electricity
upgrading Methanol

Succinic acid
Gas Power
Heat
plant
Combustion
Engine

Solar energy CO2 Emissions Glycerol Wastewater

Fig. 2. System boundary of the algal biodiesel, animal feed and succinic acid production model.

from the extraction process is considered to contain a similar qual- in this paper to assess the environmental impact of succinic acid
ity of soybean protein used in animal feed. combined with other products.

2.4. Succinic acid production

The carbohydrate remaining in the biomass after oil and protein
extraction was assumed to be converted to succinic acid through
fermentation using Escherichia coli. The processes involved in suc-
cinic acid production from carbohydrate are saccharification, fer-
mentation, ultra-filtration, crystallization, centrifugation, drying.
Initially the algae carbohydrate is converted to glucose through
saccharification using cellulase and amylase, and after saccharifica-
tion the glucose rich slurry is fed into the fermentation tank along
with other nutrients and seed culture. After fermentation at (36 °C)
the broth is filtered to separate the solid and liquid fraction. Later
the liquid fraction containing succinic acid is crystallized and cen-
trifuged to separate the succinic acid, and dried to get the final
product. The solid fraction containing biomass and water are sent
to evaporator to remove water and the remaining cake is sent to
boiler as fuel to generate part of energy required in the process.
As this succinic acid production technology is under research and
there are no process data on succinic acid production from algae
carbohydrate, the life cycle data of bio succinic production from
starch using similar technology mentioned above in [25] was used
2.5. Co-products handling
There are various options for using the remaining algal biomass
such as combustion, biogas and fertilizers. In this paper, the algal
biomass remaining after oil and protein extraction or oil, protein
and carbohydrate extraction are assumed to be used in anaerobic
digester to produce biogas that fuels the combined heat and power
plant installed within system to generate partial process heat and
electricity. The glycerol produced during biodiesel production, pro-
tein and succinic acid are assumed to be sold to the market replac-
ing conventional products.
2.6. Sensitivity analysis
The amount of products that could be produced from a feed
stock is dependent on the composition of that feedstock. While
producing multiproduct the composition of the feedstock plays
major role that leads to the amount of products that could be pro-
duced and the related environmental impact of that system. Liter-
ature sources show that there is a significant difference in the
304 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308

a
Oil Soybean
Soybeanoil
extraction cultivation
Energy

C0 2
Animal feed Protein Soybeanmeal Fertilizer

Crude Oil Energy

Passengercar Diesel Refining extraction
C0 2

b
Succinic Maleic Crude oil Energy
Hydrogenation Refining
acid anhydride extraction
C02

Oil Soybean
Soybeanoil
extraction cultivation
Energy
C02
Animal feed Protein Soybeanmeal Fertilizer

Crudeoil Energy
Passengercar Diesel Refining extraction
C02

Fig. 3. System boundary of production models (a) fossil diesel and soybean animal feed and (b) fossil diesel, soybean animal feed and succinic acid.

0.35 0.33
a was performed for two scenarios: (case 1) protein (40%) carbohy-
Biodiesel and protein (base case)
0.30 0.26 drates (20%) and lipids (30%) others (10%) and (case 2) protein
Diesel and soybean protein (reference case)
0.25 (60%) carbohydrates (10%) and lipids (20%) others (10%). The
0.20 0.17 inventories for these two cases were generated similar to the base
0.15 case and impact assessment for the functional unit of 1 km was
0.09
0.10 0.07 analyzed and compared with the reference case and the algae
0.05
0.01 systems.
0.00
CO2emission (kg CO2 eq) Fossil oil consum (kg oil eq) Land use (m2)

0.700
Biodiesel, protein and succinic acid (base case) b 3. LCA methodology
0.600 0.574

0.500 Diesel, soybean protein and succinic acid (referenc case)

0.420 The concept and methodologies of this study is in context with
0.400
previous studies [8,37,48]. The system boundary of the three cases
0.300
0.17
studied here and the reference cases are given in Figs. 1–4. The
0.200 0.147 0.134
required data were obtained from literature, the process require-
0.100
0.000
0.01 ments of the inventory were selected and then normalized for a
CO2 emission (kg CO2 eq) Fossil oil consumpon (kg oil eq) Land use (m2)
functional unit of 1 kg biodiesel (dry weight basis) to estimate
the GHG emission and fossil energy for well to tank (WtT). For tank
Fig. 4. Environmental impact of base case per km (a) biodiesel and protein to wheel (TtW) the methodology developed in [48] was used to
production system and (b) biodiesel, protein and succinic acid production system.
estimate the fuel specific consumption and consequently the
well-to-wheel GHG emissions of the biodiesel for 1 km traveled
composition of algae Chlorella vulgaris [6,46] and it is also possible was calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2) where, biofuel, fuel blend
to alter the algae composition by genetic engineering [47]. To and fossil fuel represent biodiesel, biodiesel blend and fossil diesel
determine the effect of composition change on environmental per km service. Fuel specific consumption is the amount of fuel
impacts, a sensitivity analysis was performed. Assuming the com- consumed by the vehicle for a specific distance traveled and blend
position mentioned above as the base case, the sensitivity analysis factor is the percentage of biofuel mix in fossil fuel. However, for
 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308 305

Table 1
Data inventory of algae biodiesel production per kg and 1.94 kg protein production.

Stages In/out Utilities/materials Unit Base case

Cultivation [29,51] Input Water kg 221.75
Urea g 88.14
Diammonium phosphate g 79.28
Concrete g 2.2  104
Steel g 7.5  107
Plastic g 5.08  105
Cast Iron g 1.8  108
Electricity kW h 3.40
Output Algal broth kg 226.4
Harvest [51] Input Chitosan g 45.96
Electricity kW h 3.46
Algae broth kg 255.5
Output Dry algae g 4620
Oil extraction [43] Input Hexane g 2.95
Electricity kW h 0.08
Heat MJ 2.30
Output Algal oil g 1050
Protein extraction [43,45] Input Deoiled algae biomass g 3570
Ethanol g 139.6
Methanol g 7.4
Electricity kW h 0.08
Heat MJ 2.30
Output Protein g 1940.4
Algae biomass g 1629.6
Anaerobic digestion [51] Input Electricity kW h 0.32
Heat MJ 1.50
Algae biomass g 1629.6
Output Electricity kW h 1.82
Heat MJ 5.24
Biodiesel production [44] Input Algal oil g 1050
Methanol g 124.9
Sodium hydroxide g 10.5
Sulfuric acid g 15.8
Electricity kW h 0.041
Heat MJ 5.6
Water kg 0.14
Output Biodiesel g 1000
Glycerol g 113.3
Transport Biodiesel – from industry to outlet km 100
Protein – from Industry to outlet km 100

co-products the impact results refer to WtT that was produced cor-
responding to biodiesel that was required per km (TtW).
Fuel specific consumptionbiofuel ¼ ðbiofuel blend factor
fuel specific consumptionfuel blend Þ=1  ½ð1  biofuel blend factorÞ
fuel specific consumptionfuel blend =fuel economyfossil fuel 
GHGbiofuel WtW ¼ GHGbiofuel WtT
 Fuel specific consumptionbiofuel
The geographic location assumed in this study is India with a
focus on the southern region (Tamil Nadu) and by considering uti-
lization of local potentials. This is due to the fact that, the potential
to grow algae is high in this region due to coastal line, industry
availability and also the region is well known for algae cultivation
[49]. For this study, an algae plant with biodiesel production of
capacity of 100,000 tons per year and its co-products was assumed.
The electricity requirement in this process has been modeled
based on the electricity scenario in south India where the energy
mix for electricity generation in 2011 was: coal 44%, hydropower
21%, biomass and other renewables 22%, natural gas 9%, nuclear
2%, and diesel 2% [50]. An average transmission and distribution
loss of 18% in the southern region was also taken in account [8].
A portion of energy requirement is produced with in the algae sys-
tem by feeding the left over algae biomass in CHP plant with the
heat efficiency of 41% and electrical efficiency of 34% [51,52]. As
a conservative approach only 62% of the heat with high tempera-
ture from CHP is considered to be used in algae process plant
ð1Þ due to the fact that the temperature of the hot stream varies over
time and the heat with low temperature would not be required for
this geographical region.
The data inventories for three cases are given in Tables 1 and 2.
ð2Þ All the process chemicals and energy requirements are given for
1 kg of biodiesel and for the related weight of co-products. The
conversion factors assumed for biodiesel, protein and succinic acid
production from algae were 90%, 85% and 70% (theoretical maxi-
mum) respectively. Data from the chosen system boundary and
inventory were then modeled with Simapro 7.3.3 and later the
impacts were assessed by Recipe midpoint (E) methodology. The
data for reference system (fossil diesel and soybean meal produc-
tion are available in ecoinvent data base and therefore their envi-
ronmental impacts were modeled from the data base. In case of
succinic acid production, the environmental impacts (CO2 and fos-
sil oil consumption) of biosuccinic acid from starch (4.4 t/t and
62.8 GJ/t) and fossil based succinic acid (8.4 t/t and 92.5 GJ/t)
306 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308

Table 2
Data inventory of algae biodiesel production per kg, 1.94 kg protein, and 0.54 kg succinic acid production.

Stages In/out Utilities/materials Unit Base case

Cultivation [29,51] Input Water kg 221.75
Urea g 88.14
Diammonium phosphate g 79.28
Concrete g 2.2  104
Steel g 7.5  107
Plastic g 5.08  105
Cast Iron g 1.8  108
Electricity kW h 3.40
Output Algal broth kg 226.4
Harvest [51] Input Chitosan g 45.96
Electricity kW h 3.46
Algae broth kg 226.4
Output Dry algae g 4620
Oil extraction [43] Input Hexane g 2.95
Electricity kW h 0.08
Heat MJ 2.30
Output Algal oil g 1050
Protein extraction [43,45] Input Deoiled algae biomass g 3570
Ethanol g 139.6
Methanol g 7.4
Electricity kW h 0.08
Heat MJ 2.30
Output Protein g 1940.4
Algae biomass g 1629.6
Succinic acid production Input Algae biomass g 1629.6
Output Succinic acid g 543
Anaerobic digestion [51] Input Electricity kW h 0.18
Heat MJ 0.86
Algae biomass g 936.6
Output Electricity kW h 1.04
Heat MJ 3.01
Biodiesel production [44] Input Algal oil g 1050
Methanol g 124.9
Sodium hydroxide g 10.5
Sulfuric acid g 15.8
Electricity kW h 0.041
Heat MJ 5.6
Water kg 0.14
Output Biodiesel g 1000
Glycerol g 113.3
Transport Biodiesel – from industry to outlet km 100
Protein – from industry to outlet km 100
Succinic acid – from industry to outlet km 100

reported in [25] were used. The lower heating value of fossil fuel carbon dioxide (21%) compared to conventional fossil diesel and
(42 MJ/kg) was used to convert the fossil oil consumption from soybean meal protein (reference case). However, fossil oil con-
energy basis to mass basis (kg oil/kg succinic acid). sumption was higher (26%) for algae base case compared to refer-
ence case because of high energy demand. This could be due to the
energy intensive process involved in protein extraction process. In
4. Impact assessment and discussion
an algae LCA study reported by Ajayebi et al. the fossil oil con-
sumption was lower for algal biodiesel compared to that of fossil
The environmental impacts from well to wheel of the systems
diesel per functional unit (1 km) [8]. This was because only biodie-
were estimated based on the fuel efficiency of biodiesel blend
sel production from algae was considered in that study, therefore,
and data inventory of each case. At medium to full car load, the fuel
higher de-oiled cake remained after biodiesel production that
specific consumption of B20 (20% biodiesel and 80% fossil-diesel in
could generate most of the heat and electricity required in the pro-
volume) is less by 1–3.3% compared to that of fossil diesel fuel
cess. In this study, as both biodiesel and animal protein was con-
economy [53]. The average fuel economy of diesel cars in India
sidered the energy produced from algae cake decreased
reported by Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM)
significantly as algae contains 50% protein, leading to more energy
is 18.4 km/l or 0.0543 l/km fuel specific consumption. Assuming
use from the fossil fuel source in South India. On the other hand,
an average of 2% lower fuel economy fuel economy of B20 would
the land required for fossil oil and soybean system was 96% higher
be 18.05 km/l or 0.0554 l/km fuel specific consumption. Using Eq.
than the algae diesel and protein system. This was due to the
(1) and assuming 0.832 kg/l and 0.88 kg/l as the density of diesel
higher land requirement for soybean production in the reference
and biodiesel respectively, the fuel economy of biodiesel is
system.
0.053 kg/km.
Fig. 4b shows the life cycle impacts results of algae system
The life cycle impact results (Fig. 4a) showed that the biodiesel
(biodiesel, protein and succinic acid) and reference system
and protein production from algal system (base case) released less
 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308 307

0.35 (60%), carbohydrates (10%), Lipids (20%) and others (10%)] the car-
0.29 Biodiesel and protein (case 1) a
0.30 bon dioxide emission reduction was 17% compared to the refer-
Diesel and soybean protein (reference case)
0.25 0.22 ence case. On the other hand, the carbon dioxide emission
0.20 reduction (case 1) increased by 15% compared to the base case.
0.15 0.11 In land use the algae system (case 2) with higher protein content
0.10 0.08 0.07 showed higher difference compared to its reference case. However
0.05
0.01 the fossil fuel consumption in all the cases was higher compared to
0.00
CO2 emission (kg CO2 eq) Fossil oil consumpon (kg oil eq) Land use (m2)
the respective reference cases.
In biodiesel, protein and succinic acid production system, the
carbon dioxide emission and fossil oil consumption for case 1
0.45
0.40
0.40 Biodiesel and protein (case 2) b (Fig. 6a) was less compared to case 2 (Fig. 6b) and base case
0.35 0.33 Diesel and soybean protein (reference case) (Fig. 4b). Among the systems, succinic acid production from algae
0.30 0.26 had a significant influence on the impact reduction followed by
0.25
0.20 biodiesel and protein production. This could be explained by the
0.15 0.12 fact that the low protein and high carbohydrate content in algae
0.10 0.07
(case 2) replaced a limited amount of soy protein and significant
0.05 0.01
0.00 amount of fossil based succinic acid leading to significant saving
CO2 emission (kg CO2 eq) Fossil oil consumpon (kg oil eq) Land use (m2) in fossil oil consumption.
Overall the algae system was better than fossil system and
Fig. 5. Environmental impact of biodiesel and protein production system per km (a)
case 1 and (b) case 2.
among algae systems, biodiesel, protein and succinic acid produc-
tion system was found to be favorable to environment compared to
the reference system. On the other hand it is also important to note
(conventional diesel, soybean meal and succinic acid). Similar to that the reference system to which the algae are compared are well
the previous case the carbon dioxide emission was less for the developed one and there is a room for significant improvement in
algae system compared to that of reference system. However, the algal system that would result in further impact reductions in
the reduction was 120% higher than biodiesel and protein pro- future. Thus algae system with biodiesel, protein and succinic acid
duction system (Fig. 4a). Whereas the fossil oil consumption could be a potential alternative or additional renewable system in
was higher (9.7%) for algae system (biodiesel, protein and suc- India over conventional system to reduce environmental impact
cinic acid) compared to that of conventional system, however that could lead to partial fulfillment of renewable energy policy
when compared to the biodiesel and protein system (Fig. 4a) target and at the same time implementation of such renewable
the magnitude of difference had decreased by 65% meaning that could generate jobs in the coastal rural areas.
algae based succinic production consumes less energy than con-
ventional succinic acid production that compensated the high
energy demand for protein production from algae. With regard 5. Conclusion
to land use, the algae system used 95% less land than the fossil
system and the magnitude was similar to the fuel and protein India, being a highly fossil fuel dependent country has to
production system. explore the possibility of several renewable sources for the produc-
The results of the sensitivity analysis (Figs. 5a, b, 6a, b) revealed tion of biodiesel and its co-products to satisfy its environmental
that change in the algae composition changed the carbon dioxide targets. In this connection, a prospective life cycle assessments of
emission significantly in both the algae system compared to their two algal systems were studied. The LCA impact results conclude
respective reference case. For biodiesel and protein production sys- that algal system producing biodiesel, animal feed, and succinic
tem (Fig. 5a, b), in case 1 [protein (40%), carbohydrates (20%), lipids acid could be beneficial to the environment compared to that algae
(30%) and others (10%)] the carbon dioxide emission reduction was system that produces biodiesel and animal feed. Thus algae system
24% compared to the reference case. Whereas for case 2 [protein could be a potential alternative or additional renewable system to
mitigate environmental impact in South India.

0.600 0.566
Biodiesel, protein and succinic acid (case 1) a References
0.500
0.387 Diesel, soybean protein and succinic acid (referenc case)
0.400 [1] UNEP. Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and
0.300 poverty eradication – a synthesis for policy makers; 2011. <www.unep.
org/greeneconomy>.
0.200 0.135 0.139 [2] Elbehri A, Segerstedt A, Liu P. Biofuels and the sustainability challenge: a global
0.11
0.100 assessment of sustainability issues, trends and policies for biofuels and related
0.01 feedstocks. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
0.000 Trade and markets division; 2013.
CO2 emission (kg CO2 eq) Fossil oil consumpon (kg oil eq) Land use (m2) [3] Rizwan M, Lee JH, Gani R. Optimal design of microalgae-based biorefinery:
economics, opportunities and challenges. Appl Energy 2015;150:69–79.
0.700 [4] Subhadra BG, Edwards M. Coproduct market analysis and water footprint of
0.600 Biodiesel, protein and succinic acid (case 2)
b simulated commercial algal biorefineries. Appl Energy 2011;88:3515–23.
0.600
0.462 Diesel, soybean protein and succinic acid (referenc case) [5] Rawat I, Ranjith Kumar R, Mutanda T, Bux F. Biodiesel from microalgae: a
0.500
critical evaluation from laboratory to large scale production. Appl Energy
0.400 2013;103:444–67.
0.300 0.26 [6] Guccione A, Biondi N, Sampietro G, Rodolfi L, Bassi N, Tredici MR. Chlorella for
0.200 0.162 protein and biofuels: from strain selection to outdoor cultivation in a green
0.128
wall panel photobioreactor. Biotechnol Biofuels 2014;7:84.
0.100 [7] National policy on biofuels. Ministry of new and renewable energy,
0.01
0.000 Government of India; 2009. <http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/UserFiles/
CO2 emission (kg CO2 eq) Fossil oil consumpon (kg oil eq) Land use (m2) biofuel_policy>.
[8] Ajayebi A, Gnansounou E, Kenthorai Raman J. Comparative life cycle
Fig. 6. Environmental impact of biodiesel, protein and succinic acid per km (a) case assessment of biodiesel from algae and jatropha: a case study of India.
1 and (b) case 2. Bioresour Technol 2013;150:429–37.
308 E. Gnansounou, J. Kenthorai Raman / Applied Energy 161 (2016) 300–308
[9] Yan Y, Li X, Wang G, Gui X, Li G, Su F, et al. Biotechnological preparation of
biodiesel and its high-valued derivatives: a review. Appl Energy
2014;113:1614–31.
[10] Li J, Liu Y, Cheng JJ, Mos M, Daroch M. Biological potential of microalgae in
China for biorefinery-based production of biofuels and high value compounds.
New Biotechnol 2015;32:588–96.
[11] Werpy T, Petersen G. Top value added chemicals from biomass: volume I –
results of screening for potential candidates from sugars and synthesis gas. 76
pp.; NREL Report No. TP-510-35523; DOE/GO-102004-1992; 2004.
[12] Cok B, Tsiropoulos I, Roes AL, Patel MK. Succinic acid production derived from
carbohydrates: an energy and greenhouse gas assessment of a platform
chemical toward a bio-based economy. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 2014;8:16–29.
[13] Cheng KK, Zhao XB, Zeng J, Zhang JA. Biotechnological production of succinic
acid: current state and perspectives. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 2012;6:302–18.
[14] Chan S, Kanchanatawee S, Jantama K. Production of succinic acid from sucrose
and sugarcane molasses by metabolically engineered Escherichia coli.
Bioresour Technol 2012;103:329–36.
[15] Chen CX, Ding SP, Wang DZ, Li ZM, Ye Q. Simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation of cassava to succinic acid by Escherichia coli NZN111. Bioresour
Technol 2014;163:100–5.
[16] Jiang M, Wan Q, Liu R, Liang L, Chen X, Wu M, et al. Succinic acid production
from corn stalk hydrolysate in an E. coli mutant generated by atmospheric and
room-temperature plasmas and metabolic evolution strategies. J Ind Microbiol
Biotechnol 2014;41:115–23.
[17] Li Q, Siles JA, Thompson IP. Succinic acid production from orange peel and
wheat straw by batch fermentations of Fibrobacter succinogenes S85. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;88:671–8.
[18] Bai B, Zhou J, Yang M, Liu Y, Xu X, Xing J. Efficient production of succinic acid
from macroalgae hydrolysate by metabolically engineered Escherichia coli.
Bioresour Technol 2015;185:56–61.
[19] Iersel SV, Flammini A. Algae-based biofuels: applications and co-products.
Environmental and natural resources service series, No. 44 – FAO, Rome; 2010.
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1704e/i1704e.pdf>.
[20] Lee J, Sim SJ, Bott M, Um Y, Oh MK, Woo HM. Succinate production from CO2-
grown microalgal biomass as carbon source using engineered Corynebacterium
glutamicum through consolidated bioprocessing. Scientific Reports 2014; 4:
5819.
[21] Livestock census. 19th livestock census-all India report. Ministry of agriculture
Department of animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries. Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi; 2012. <http://dahd.nic.in/dahd/WriteReadData/Livestock.pdf>.
[22] Spolaore P, Joannis-Cassan C, Duran E, Isambert A. Commercial applications of
microalgae. J Biosci Bioeng 2006;101:87–96.
[23] Khan Shakeel A, Rashmi, Hussain Mir Z, Prasad S, Banerjee UC. Prospects of
biodiesel production from microalgae in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:2361–72.
[24] Collet P, Hélias A, Lardon LA, Steyer J-P, Bernard O. Recommendations for life
cycle assessment of algal fuels. Appl Energy 2015;154:1089–102.
[25] BREW. Medium and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological
production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources. Netherlands: Utrecht
University; 2006.
[26] Shirvani T, Yan X, Inderwildi OR, Edwards PP, King DA. Life cycle energy and
greenhouse gas analysis for algae-derived biodiesel. Energy Environ Sci
2011;4:3773.
[27] Batan L, Quinn J, Willson B, Bradley T. Net energy and greenhouse gas emission
evaluation of biodiesel derived from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol
2010;44:7975–80.
[28] Collet P, Hélias A, Lardon L, Ras M, Goy R-A, Steyer J-P. Life-cycle assessment of
microalgae culture coupled to biogas production. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:207–14.
[29] Davis R, Fishman D, Frank ED, Wigmosta MS. Renewable diesel from algal
lipids: an integrated baseline for cost, emissions, and resource potential from a
harmonized model. Technical Report. Golden, Colorado: Argonne National
Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2012.
[30] Resurreccion EP, Colosi LM, White Ma, Clarens AF. Comparison of algae
cultivation methods for bioenergy production using a combined life cycle
assessment and life cycle costing approach. Bioresour Technol
2012;126:298–306.
[31] Frank ED, Han J, Palou-Rivera I, Elgowainy A, Wang MQ. Methane and nitrous
oxide emissions affect the life-cycle analysis of algal biofuels. Environ Res Lett
2012;7:014030.
[32] Soratana K, Barr WJ, Landis AE. Effects of co-products on the life-cycle impacts
of microalgal biodiesel. Bioresource Technol 2014;159:157–66.
[33] Soh L, Montazeri M, Haznedaroglu BZ, Kelly C, Peccia J, Eckelman MJ, et al.
Evaluating microalgal integrated biorefinery schemes: empirical controlled
growth studies and life cycle assessment. Bioresour Technol 2014;151:19–27.
[34] Singh A, Olsen SI. A critical review of biochemical conversion, sustainability
and life cycle assessment of algal biofuels. Appl Energy 2011;88:3548–55.
[35] Van Boxtel AJB, Perez-Lopez P, Breitmayer E, Slegers PM. The potential of
optimized process design to advance LCA performance of algae production
systems. Appl Energy 2015;154:1122–7.
[36] Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Panichelli L, Villegas J. Energy and greenhouse gas
balances of biofuels: biases induced by LCA modelling choices. J Sci Ind Res
2008;67:885–97.
[37] Chowdhury R, Viamajala S, Gerlach R. Reduction of environmental and energy
footprint of microalgal biodiesel production through material and energy
integration. Bioresour Technol 2012;108:102–11.
[38] Seth JR, Wangikar PP. Challenges and opportunities for microalgae-mediated
CO2 capture and biorefinery. Biotechnol Bioeng 2015;112:1281–96.
[39] FAO. Algae-based biofuels: a review of challenges and opportunities for
developing countries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations; 2009.
[40] Becker EW. Micro-algae as a source of protein. Biotechnol Adv
2007;25:207–10.
[41] Tran DT, Le BH, Lee DJ, Chen CL, Wang HY, Chang JS. Microalgae harvesting and
subsequent biodiesel conversion. Bioresour Technol 2013;140:179–86.
[42] Chen YM, Liu JC, Ju YH. Flotation removal of algae from water. Colloids Surf B
1998;12:49–55.
[43] Stephenson AL, Kazamia E, Dennis JS, Howe CJ, Scott SA, Smith AG. Life-cycle
assessment of potential algal biodiesel production in the United Kingdom: a
comparison of raceways and air-lift tubular bioreactors. Energy Fuels
2010;24:4062–77.
[44] Zhang Y, Dube MA, McLean DD, Kates M. Biodiesel production from waste
cooking oil: 1. Process design and technological assessment. Bioresour Technol
2003;89:1–16.
[45] Kale A. Methods of protein extraction from substantially intact algal cells. US
Patents 20120029170 A1; 2012.
[46] Chia MA, Lombardi AT, Melao MDGG. Growth and biochemical composition of
Chlorella vulgaris in different growth media. An Acad Bras Cienc
2013;85:1427–38.
[47] Ho SH, Huang SW, Chen CY, Hasunuma T, Kondo A, Chang JS. Characterization
and optimization of carbohydrate production from an indigenous microalga
Chlorella vulgaris FSP-E. Bioresour Technol 2013;135:157–65.
[48] Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L. Life cycle assessment of
biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresour Technol
2009;100:4919–30.
[49] Chanakya H, Mahapatra D, Sarada R, Chauhan VS, Abitha R. Sustainability of
large-scale algal biofuel production in India. J Inst Sci 2012;92:63–98.
[50] Energy Statistics. Central statistics office, national statistical organization,
ministry of statistics and programme implementation, Government of India;
2012. <http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/Energy_Statistics_2012_28mar.
pdf>.
[51] Frank ED, Han J, Palou-Rivera I, Elgowainy A, Wang MQ. Life-cycle analysis of
algal lipid fuels with the GREET model, ANL/ESD/11-5. Argonne: Argonne
National Laboratory; 2011.
[52] Garofalo R. Algae and aquatic biomass for a sustainable production of 2nd
generation biofuels. AquaFUELs – Taxonomy, Biol Biotechnol 2009:1–258.
[53] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Rodríguez-Fernández J. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel
engine emissions. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:198–223.