Opinion

Microalgal Cultivation in
Treating Liquid Digestate from
Biogas Systems
Ao Xia1,2 and Jerry D. Murphy1,3,*
Biogas production via anaerobic digestion (AD) has rapidly developed in recent
Trends
years. In addition to biogas, digestate is an important byproduct. Liquid diges-
Biogas production has developed
tate is the major fraction of digestate and may contain high levels of ammonia rapidly in recent years. Digestate is
nitrogen. Traditional processing technologies (such as land application) require an important byproduct of the biogas
system. However, digestate proces-
significant energy inputs and raise environmental risks (such as eutrophication). sing has become a major bottleneck
Alternatively, microalgae can efficiently remove the nutrients from digestate in the development of a biogas
while producing high-value biomass that can be used for the production of industry.

biochemicals and biofuels. Both inorganic and organic carbon sources derived Biofuels and bioproducts from micro-
from biogas production can significantly improve microalgal production. Land algae are promising for the future;
nevertheless, the current microalgal
requirement for microalgal cultivation is estimated as 3% of traditional direct
cultivation cost is too high to allow
land application of digestate. commercial applications. Nutrient use
may account for half of the cost in
Development of Biogas Industry microalgal cultivation. The combining
of on-site liquid digestate treatment
The global industry of biogas (see Glossary) has developed significantly in the past 10 years and microalgal cultivation can signifi-
[1–3]. In Europe, Germany leads the biogas industry. A total of 10 020 biogas plants were in cant reduce the nutrient cost for
operation in 2014, generating over 144 PJ of energy; biogas produced 4.7% of electricity and cultivation.
1% of heat demand in Germany [1]. In Asia, China is the largest biogas producer; in 2014, 41.5
Study of microalga-based digestate
million household digesters were in operation, annually generating 13.7 billion m3 of biogas (293 treatment has become a topic of much
PJ) [2]. The number of medium/large-scale biogas plants is also growing. In 2014, 99 957 biogas interest in the past few years. Micro-
plants produced 2.1 billion m3 of biogas (45 PJ) [2]. algae can efficiently remove various
nutrients from digestate, particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus. However,
Currently, most biogas is used as a source for generation of heat and/or electricity. However, the there remain numerous challenges for
use of upgraded biogas (biomethane after removal of CO2 and impurities) as a transport fuel is such a process.
growing. In Sweden, 54% of biogas was used as transport biofuel in 2013 [1]. Other countries,
such as Switzerland, Germany, China, the USA, and France, are developing biogas-fuelled
transport systems [4].

In addition to biogas, digestate is another important byproduct [5]. Digestate processing has
become a major bottleneck in the development of a biogas industry [6]. Digestate may be
1
separated into solid (10–20% by mass) and liquid (80–90% by mass) fractions by screw press MaREI Centre, Environmental
Research Institute, University College
or decanter centrifuge [6]. Solid digestate contains less water and is more stable; it can be easily Cork, Cork, Ireland
transported and stored. Solid digestate can either be used as agricultural biofertiliser or be 2
Key Laboratory of Low-Grade Energy
further converted to heat and/or value-added products (e.g., pyrochar, nanocellulose) via Utilization Technologies and Systems,
Chongqing University, Chongqing
thermal processes [6,7]. By contrast, liquid digestate processing is more difficult. The simplest 400044, China
treatment method is to directly spread on local agricultural land; land application of liquid 3
School of Engineering, University
digestate, however, has some disadvantages. First, it leads to NH3 volatilisation and nutrient College Cork, Cork, Ireland

loss, which may cause eutrophication of nearby water systems [8]. Second, it may cause
chemical (e.g., heavy metals), biological (e.g., pathogens), or physical (e.g., plastics) contamina- *Correspondence: jerry.murphy@ucc.ie
tion, which reduces the long-term crop productivity of soil [5,9]. Furthermore, the increasing (J.D. Murphy).

264 Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.12.010

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
number and capacity of biogas plants may lead to an oversupply of digestate for local agricultural Glossary
land; the value of liquid digestate after long-distance transport may become negative. Digestate is Anaerobic digestion (AD): an
continuously produced. Land application is dependent on the crop growth stage, soil type, and anaerobic biological process
time of year; it is not applied in winter months or in poor weather. Thus, digestate needs to be comprising hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis, and methanogenesis.
stored. The storage process can emit additional greenhouse gases (e.g., CH4, N2O) [7,9] as the AD degrades organic components
digestion process rarely destroys all volatile solids. Other digestate treatment technologies, such as animal manure, agricultural
such as membrane separation and evaporation, can efficiently concentrate the nutrients; however, residues, energy crops, industrial
they require high energy input. For example, at an industrial scale, membrane separation con- wastes, and food wastes while
producing biogas and digestate via a
sumes 16–25 kWeh (58–90 MJ) of electricity per m3 treated digestate, while evaporation requires complex microorganism community.
300–350 kWh (1080–1260 MJ) of thermal energy per ton of water evaporated [6]. AD is efficient in organic component
removal; however, it has minimal
effect in removal of the inorganic
There are huge demands on agricultural land for application of digestate (in countries such as
component [14].
Germany) and in a number of countries (such as Ireland) authorisation for the application of Biogas: a gas mixture mainly
digestate produced from the digestion of animal byproducts and wastes is very difficult to obtain. comprising CH4 (ca. 60% by volume)
Solutions whereby digestate is not land applied are extremely beneficial to a biogas system. and CO2 (ca. 40% by volume). The
gas usually contains trace amounts of
Aquatic microalgae may offer an alternative solution for digestate treatment [7,10]. The initial
water, H2S, NH3, N2, O2, CO,
attempt to cultivate microalgae in digestate was conducted by Golueke and Oswald in the 1950s halogenated hydrocarbons, and
[11]. However, this process was not built upon until very recently. The primary driver for this work siloxanes. Biogas has various
is the increasing demand for digestate processing from the biogas industry [1,6]. applications, such as electricity,
vehicle fuel, and heat.
Biorefinery: a sustainable process
This opinion article aims to provide a perspective on microalgal cultivation for liquid digestate converting biomass to various
treatment. Recent trends of microalgae grown in digestate are reviewed. A quantitative model is products (such as chemicals,
proposed for a 2-MWe biogas plant to establish the savings in land area needed provided by a materials, and feeds) and energy
(including electricity and/or heat and
microalgal cultivation system as opposed to land application of digestate. The potential and the biofuels).
challenges associated with such a process are highlighted. Combined heat and power (CHP)
generation: simultaneous generation
Microalgae Grown in Liquid Digestate of electricity and heat via biogas
combustion. Efficiencies of 35% and
Microalga-based biofuels and bioproducts are promising for the future; however, the current 50% respectively would be typical.
cultivation cost is too high to allow commercial applications [10,12,13]. Nutrient use (e.g., Digestate: a mixture of undigested
nitrogen, phosphorus) can account for half of the cost and energy input in cultivation [8,14]. The substrates, microbial biomass, and
metabolic products. Digestate
combining of on-site liquid digestate treatment and microalgal cultivation can significantly reduce
contains high levels of nitrogen,
the nutrient cost. phosphorous, and stabilised carbon
[7].
There are three main cultivation modes for microalgae: photoautotrophic, heterotrophic, and Eutrophication: a phenomenon
whereby an aquatic system is
mixotrophic, as described in Box 1. For liquid digestate treatment, mixotrophic microalgae not
enriched with natural or artificial
only improve the biomass productivity and enhance nitrogen and phosphorus removal but also nutrients. This may cause explosive
enable inorganic and organic carbon removal. Mixotrophic cultivation has higher biomass growth of algae and plants.
concentration and productivity and less photoinhibition/limitation than photoautotrophic culti- Microalgae: microscopic
photosynthetic eukaryotic organisms
vation [14–16]. Mixotrophic microalgae can achieve one to two magnitudes higher productivities
(usually 1–10 mm in size) that live in
than photoautotrophic cultures in outdoor photobioreactors [15]. freshwater and marine environments.
They convert CO2 and water to
Box 2 presents the effects of the main components of liquid digestate on microalgal growth. The organic carbon components (e.g.,
glucose) and produce O2 through
composition of liquid digestate varies significantly and is mainly dependent on feedstock photosynthesis. Cyanobacteria may
characteristics, the microbial community, AD process control (e.g., temperature, organic also be referred to as microalgae, as
loading rate, trace element supply), and the configuration (e.g., batch or continuous, single they share many features [44,45,47].
stage or two stage). Two-stage fermentation: separate
hydrolytic and methanogenic
reactors. The two reactors operate at
Trends in Microalgae Treating Liquid Digestate the optimal pH for each stage
Table 1 summarises recent studies of microalgal cultivation using liquid digestate. Most of the (hydrolysis and methanation). In the
reported microalgae are naturally grown in either a freshwater environment (e.g., Chlorella first, hydrolytic reactor much of the
organic component is hydrolysed and
pyrenoidosa, Scenedesmus obliquus) or a marine environment (e.g., Nannochloropsis salina) fermented to VFAs, while in the
[17–19]. Alternatively, a mutant strain obtained by nuclear irradiation (e.g., Chlorella PY-ZU1)

Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 265

 Box 1. Microalgal Cultivation Mode second, methanogenic reactor the
Microalgae in general are photosynthetic microorganisms that use energy from light to extract electrons and protons from organic effluents are further
water and reduce CO2 as organic compounds [14]. Nevertheless, many microalgal species use organic substrates under converted to CH4 and CO2.
light or dark conditions (mixotrophic and heterotrophic growth) [12,16]. For instance, Chlorella vulgaris, Arthrospira
platensis, and Haematococcus pluvialis can employ photoautotrophic, mixotrophic, and heterotrophic growth modes
[16]. Table I presents a comparison of the three main cultivation modes.

Photoautotrophic cultivation has been widely reported for microalgal cultivation in both raceway ponds and photo-
bioreactors [13,15]. Microalgae use light as an energy source and inorganic carbon as the carbon source (e.g., CO2,
bicarbonate). Nevertheless, high microalgal biomass productivity and concentration are difficult to achieve due to the self-
shading phenomenon caused by the accumulation of microalgal cells [15,24]. Furthermore, photoinhibition caused by
high light intensity is a common problem in outdoor cultivation [12].

In heterotrophic cultivation, microalgae use organic compounds (e.g., sugars, VFAs) as energy and carbon sources.
Drawbacks of light limitation and inhibition in photosynthesis are avoided; consequently, high biomass productivity and
concentration can be achieved [15,16] with less land requirement. Heterotrophic cultivation may be considered a
promising mode if a low-cost substrate can be sourced. However, the microalgal cultures are easily contaminated by
other microorganisms. The maintenance of microalgal culture is a critical issue for heterotrophic cultivation that
significantly increases the cultivation cost [15].

In mixotrophic cultivation, microalgae employ heterotrophy and photoautotrophy using both organic and inorganic
carbon sources [15,16]. Organic carbon is assimilated via aerobic respiration and inorganic carbon is fixed via
photosynthesis. Light is not a dominant limiting factor for mixotrophic microalgal growth as cultivation is not solely
dependent on photosynthesis. The adverse effects of photoinhibition and limitation on microalgal growth can be reduced
when the illumination is too high or too low. Combining photosynthesis and organic carbon compound utilisation,
mixotrophic cultivation can improve growth rates, reduce cultivation duration, and enhance biomass productivity [14,15].
Furthermore, CO2 released by aerobic respiration can be reused to enhance photosynthesis [16].

Table I. A Comparison of Photoautotrophic, Heterotrophic, and Mixotrophic Cultivation Modes for

Microalgal Cultivation (Adapted from [15,16])
Parameter Photoautotrophic Heterotrophic Mixotrophic

Reactor Raceway pond and Fermenter Raceway pond and photobioreactor

photobioreactor

Carbon source Inorganic sources Organic sources such as Both organic and inorganic sources
such as CO2 and sugars and organic acids
bicarbonate

Energy source Light Organic sources Both light and organic sources

Biomass Low High High

productivity

Features
Energy-saving
Independent of light
Reduction of photo limitation and

process
High growth rate and inhibition

Capacity to productivity
High growth rate
produce light-
Less biomass loss in absence of light
induced high-value
Cost reduction
substances

is used for liquid digestate treatment [10]. Liquid digestate is mainly derived from AD of
agricultural wastes (e.g., livestock manure, slurry) and industrial wastes (e.g., vinasse)
[10,18,20,21]. The biomass productivities and concentrations (dry weight) of microalgae culti-
vated in liquid digestate are in the ranges of 0.03–0.67 g/l/d and 0.4–4.8 g/l. These values are
comparable with or slightly higher than those of photoautotrophic cultivation in synthetic medium
[10,13]. However, the performance can be further improved by addressing the following
inhibition and limitation factors.

Turbidity and Ammonia Nitrogen Inhibition

The high turbidity of liquid digestate caused by suspended materials is a major issue, although
microalgal cultivation can partly reduce the turbidity by removing the suspended materials [22].
As photosynthesis is dependent on the availability of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)

266 Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4

Box 2. Suitability of Liquid Digestate as Microalgal Cultivation Medium
Table I presents the main characteristics of liquid digestate derived from wet AD (total solids content in digester below
15%). Liquid digestate is usually slightly alkaline or neutral, with a pH value in the range 6.7–9.2. This is within the optimal
range for freshwater microalgae (6–8) and alkaliphilic microalgae (8.5–10) [13,14,23,47].

Liquid digestate contains abundant nitrogen [total nitrogen (TN): 139–3456 mg/l] and phosphorus [total phosphorus
(TP): 7–381 mg/l]. These are the primary nutrients required for microalgal growth.

Nitrogen is found in various biological substances (e.g., protein, nucleic acid, phospholipid) [19]. Ammonium is
considered the preferred form of nitrogen for microalgal growth, as a redox reaction is not involved and less energy
is required [34]. When ammonium is available, cyanobacteria do not use other nitrogen sources until ammonium is
consumed [14]. In digestate, ammonia nitrogen, which is mainly in the form of ammonium nitrogen, is the major
component of TN (65–98%); this enables fast growth of microalgae.

Phosphorus, preferably in the form of phosphate, is essential for microalgal growth and various cellular processes
including energy transfer and synthesis of DNA and nucleic acids [23]. Phosphate is the dominant component of TP (82–
90%) in digestate, which facilitates microalgal cultivation.

COD concentration in liquid digestate is in the range 210–6900 mg/l. COD includes VFAs such as acetate [10,17]. These
organic carbon sources can enhance mixotrophic metabolism and boost the growth rate of microalgae [18]. Furthermore, the
inorganic carbon sources (939–1353 mg/l), mainly in the form of bicarbonate, can play an important role in photosynthesis [25].

Other macronutrients (e.g., manganese, potassium, sulphur) and micronutrients (e.g., boron, cobalt, iron, molybdenum,
nickel, zinc) exist in liquid digestate [10,14]. They are derived either from feedstock degradation or trace element supply in
AD and are necessary for microalgal cultivation [10,13].

Table I. Characteristics of Liquid Digestate

Characteristic Value Range Refs

pH 6.7–9.2 [17–20,25,30,33,41,48–50]

COD, mg/l 210–6900 [17–20,24–26,30–33,41,49,51]

Total inorganic carbon (TIC) mg/l 939–1353 [20,48]

TN 139–3456 [8,10,17–20,22,25,31,33,36,41,48–52]

Percentage of ammonia nitrogen (TAN/TN) 65–98% [8,10,17,18,22,25,33,48,49,52]

TP 7–381 [8,10,17–20,22,25,26,30,31,36,37,41,48–52]

Percentage of phosphate (PO4-P/TP) 82–90% [17,18,49]

Aluminium (Al), mg/l 0.1–34 [18,52]

Boron (B), mg/l 0.9–4 [8,10,17,18,52]

Cadmium (Cd), mg/l <1 [10,52]

Calcium (Ca), mg/l 65–1044 [8,10,17,18,24,52]

Chlorine (Cl), mg/l 160–438 [10,24]

Chromium (Cr), mg/l <1.2 [52]

Cobalt (Co), mg/l 0.02–0.04 [17]

Copper (Cu), mg/l 0.09–21.4 [8,10,17,52]

Iron (Fe), mg/l 0.9–65 [8,10,17,18,52]

Lead (Pb), mg/l 0.03–2.8 [10,52]

Magnesium (Mg), mg/l 3–659 [8,10,17,18,24,52]

Manganese (Mn), mg/l 0.1–17 [8,10,17,18,52]

Molybdenum (Mo), mg/l <1.8 [10,52]

Nickel (Ni), mg/l <1.4 [52]

Potassium (K), mg/l 102–2707 [8,10,17,18,24,52]

Silicon (Si), mg/l 26–72 [52]

Sodium (Na), mg/l 126–709 [10,17,18,24,52]

Sulphur (S), mg/l 111–115 [52]

Zinc (Zn), mg/l 0.9–13 [10,18,52]

Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 267

Table 1. Recent Trends and Performances of Microalgae Cultivated in Liquid Digestate
Inoculum Digestate Digestate Operationa Biomass Nutrient Refs
Origin Pretreatment Productivity Removal
and Efficiency
Concentrationb
Chlorella pyrenoidosa Starch
Filtration Batch (9 d)
0.58 g/l/d
TN 91.6% [18]
processing
Sterilisation
3.01 g/l
TP 90.7%
wastewater
Mixed with
COD 75.8%
alcohol
wastewater

C. pyrenoidosa Starch
Precipitation Outdoor batch
0.63 g/l/d
TN 83.1% [17]

processing
Filtration (14 d) sparging
2.05 g/l
TP 97.0%
wastewater with 5–9% CO2
COD 66.0%

Chlorella PY-ZU1 Swine manure
Centrifugation Batch (13 d)
0.601 g/l/d
TAN 73% [10]
and sewage
Autoclave sparging with
4.81 g/l
TP 95%
15% CO2
COD 79%

Chlorella sp. Dairy manure
Dilution Batch (21 d)
1.71 g/l
TN 82.5% [22]

Filtration
TAN 100%

TP 74.5%

COD 38.4%

Chlorella sp. NA
Ultraviolet Batch (6 d) with
0.494 g/l
TN 73.1% [41]

Filtration biogas in
TP 67.6%
headspace
COD 78.9%

Chlorella sp. Wastewater
Mixed with Batch (until
0.45 g/l/d
TN 83.7% [26]
sludge wastewater stationary
2.11 g/l
TP 94.2%
treatment phase)
COD 86.3%
plant effluent

Chlorella vulgaris Dairy manure
Dilution Semicontinuous
TN 93.6% [36]

(30 d) with 2%
TAN 100%
CO2
TP 89.2%

COD 55.4%

Chlorella minutissima, Poultry litter
Centrifugation Batch (12 d)
0.076 g/l/d
TN 60% [52]
Chlorella sorokiniana Dilution
0.612 g/l
TP 80%
and Scenedesmus
bijuga

C. vulgaris, Livestock
Ultraviolet Batch (7 d) with
TN 76.0% [20]

Scenedesmus waste
Filtration biogas in
TP 63.2%
obliquus, and headspace
COD 63.1%
Neochloris
CO2 62%
oleoabundans

C. vulgaris and Vinasse
Dilution Continuous
11.8 g/m2/d
TN 37% [21]

nitrifying–denitrifying (175 d) with
0.6 g/l
TP 71%
activated sludge synthetic biogas
COD 51%
sparging
TOC 57%

TIC 78%

CO2 80%

C. vulgaris, N. Cattle slurry
Dilution Batch (21 d) in
0.26 g/l/d
TAN 99.9% [53]
oleoabundans, and S. and raw CO2 incubator
PO4-P 97.3%
obliquus cheese whey

Chroococcus sp. Chroococcus
Dilution or Batch (12 d) with
1.42 g/l
TAN 85.2% [30]
sp. mixed with air sparging
NO3-N 77.3%
wastewater
TP 89.3%
or BG 11
COD 70%
medium

Desmodesmus sp. Pig manure
Filtration Batch (10 d)
0.385 g/l
TN 75.6% [33]

Dilution
TAN 92.7%

PO4-P 100%

Fed-batch (40 d)
1.039 g/l
TN 94.2% [33]

TAN 91.1%

PO4-P 88.7%

268 Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4

Table 1. (continued)
Inoculum Digestate Digestate Operationa Biomass Nutrient Refs
Origin Pretreatment Productivity Removal
and Efficiency
Concentrationb
Desmodesmus sp. Pig manure
Filtration Batch (14 d)
0.029 g/l/d
TN 100% [49]

Dilution
0.412 g/l
TP 100%

Nannochloropsis Municipal
Mixed with Batch (10 d) with
0.092 g/l/d
TN 100% [31]
salina wastewater artificial air sparging
0.92 g/l
TP 100%
seawater

Semicontinuous
0.155 g/l/d
TN 89% [31]

(18 d) with air
TP 82.8%
sparging

N. salina and Municipal
Mixed with Batch (18 d) with
0.151 g/l/d
TN 100% [32]
Synechocystis sp. wastewater artificial air sparging
TP 100%
seawater

Semicontinuous
0.212 g/l/d
TN 100% [32]

(18 d) with air
TP 100%
sparging

N. oleoabundans Dairy manure
Dilution Batch (11 d) with
0.088 g/l/d [8]
2–3% CO2
sparging

Scenedesmus Livestock
Filtration Batch (5 d) with
0.118 g/l/d [25]

accuminatus waste
Autoclave air sparging

Dilution

Semicontinuous
0.214 g/l/d
TN 89% [25]

(29 d) with air
sparging

Scenedesmus sp. Swine manure
Autoclave Batch then
0.67 g/l/d
TAN >95% [29]

Mixed with continuous
PO4-P >97%
municipal chemostats
wastewater (45 d) with air
sparging

S. obliquus Livestock
Filtration Batch (7 d) with
0.311 g/l/d
TN 74.6% [19]

waste
Autoclave biogas in
TP 88.8%

Dilution headspace
COD 75.3%

CO2 73.8%

Mixed microalgae Wastewater
Dilution Batch (7 d)
2.6 g/l [24]

dominated by
Scenedesmus sp.

Tetraselmis sp. Tetraselmis
Dilution Batch (10 d) with
5  108 cells/l [37]
sp. air sparging

a
Indoor experiment unless stated otherwise.
b
Dry biomass weight unless stated otherwise.

(400–700 nm), high turbidity leads to low PAR, thereby reducing the growth of microalgae
[7,22,23]. Various pretreatment methods, such as filtration [18], centrifugation [10], and precipi-
tation [17], have been applied for removal of the solid particles from digestate to reduce the
turbidity. Nevertheless, there is no quantitative study on the impact of digestate pretreatment
methods on microalgal growth rates.

Inhibition from ammonia nitrogen is another critical issue. Although ammonium is a preferable
form for microalgal utilisation, high total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) (both ammonium and free
ammonia) levels may lead to inhibition. Inhibitory thresholds vary significantly and depend on
the microalgal species and cultivation conditions. Levine et al. suggested that 50 mg/l of TAN is

Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 269

the inhibitory threshold for Neochloris oleoabundans while 100 mg/l of TAN is toxic to microalgal
cells [8]. By contrast, Uggetti et al. reported that 260 mg/l of TAN did not prevent the growth of a
mixed microalgal culture dominated by Scenedesmus sp. [24]. Park et al. found that a TAN level
of 100 mg/l did not suppress the cell growth of Scenedesmus sp. When TAN levels increased to
500 mg/l, the cell concentration was reduced by 30%, while the initial growth rate was not
inhibited. Only 35% of the cell concentration was achieved at 1000 mg/l of TAN [25].

Free ammonia is mainly responsible for the TAN inhibition, as the microalgal cell membrane is
highly permeability to free ammonia [26]. A 77% reduction in the growth rate of Scenedesmus
sp. was found when the free ammonia nitrogen (FAN) level increased from 9 to 34 mg/l [24].
Photosynthesis rates of S. obliquus and Dunaliella tertiolecta can be reduced by 50% when the
FAN level reached 17 mg/l [27]. The equilibrium between ammonia and ammonium is shown in
Equation 1. The FAN concentration increases with increasing TAN, pH, and temperature
(Equation 2) [28].


NH3 þ H2 O $ NHþ
4 þ OH [1]

TAN
FAN ¼ [2]
1þ  10pH 
2729:92
 0:09018þ
T ðK Þ
10

At room temperature (25 8C), FAN accounts for only 0.1% of TAN at pH 6; this significantly
increases to 0.6%, 5%, and 36% at pH 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Therefore, pH control (e.g., by
CO2 sparging) is considered an important strategy for reduction of FAN inhibition [26].

TAN levels in liquid digestate are usually high (1000–3000 mg/l) and have the potential to inhibit
microalgal growth. Most of the studies used dilution to reduce the inhibition effect caused by
TAN, FAN, and turbidity (Table 1). However, microalgal biomass concentrations are reduced
due to the dilution of the nutrient supply [24]. Furthermore, the dilution process consumes a
large quantity of freshwater; this makes the overall process less attractive for industrial
application. The use of wastewater [26,29,30] and seawater [31,32] as the dilution source
is more sustainable. Alternatively, direct use of liquid digestate without dilution has recently
been demonstrated in green microalgal cultivation [10,17,20]. Cheng et al. found Chlorella PY-
ZU1 adapted to the liquid digestate from pig farms (initial TAN level: 1093 mg/l) with 15% CO2
gas sparging under low pH conditions (6–6.5) [10]. In this case, FAN is at a low concentration
(0.7–2.3 mg/l) and may not significantly inhibit microalgal growth. Most of the studies reported
in Table 1 were conducted in batch culture systems; however, continuous flow cultures (e.g.,
fed batch, chemostat) are more advantageous in controlling nutrient levels because of their
flexibility in nutrient supply. Consequently, the inhibition caused by excess TAN and turbidity
can be reduced [23,29,33].

Phosphorus and Carbon Limitation

The optimal N/P mass ratio for microalgal growth is suggested to be around 7 [10,34]. In some
cases, insufficient phosphorus supply can be a limited factor in liquid digestate applied to
microalgal cultivation [6,10,20,26]. The growth rate of microalgae almost doubled through the
addition of phosphate to liquid digestate [10]. Similarly, the C/N mass ratio of microalgae is in the
range 4–8 [35], indicating that the carbon sources in digestate may be much lower than required.
Both external inorganic sources (e.g., CO2, bicarbonate) and organic carbon sources [e.g.,
volatile fatty acids (VFAs), sugars] can be effectively supplied to boost microalgal growth and to
improve nutrient removal [10,18,25,33,36].

270 Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4

Bacterial Contamination
Bacteria present in liquid digestate may have either positive impacts (e.g., vitamin, ammonium,
and CO2 production, O2 consumption) or negative impacts (e.g., competition for nutrients) on
the microalgal cultivation [7,8,17,24,37]. Sterilisation process to maintain a monoculture of
microalgae is not favourable for mass cultivation systems. The presence of bacteria is inevitable
and should be accepted and controlled [27,37]. Moreover, other biological contamination
sources, such as foreign algae, zooplankton, and viruses, may greatly inhibit the growth of
the target microalgae [38]; the control strategies for biological contamination are important for
future mass cultivation of microalgae.

Filtration (to remove large organisms) and chemical addition (to inhibit zooplankton) are effective
approaches to control biological contamination during microalgal cultivation [38]. Nevertheless,
the former method consumes energy whereas the later method may result in additional
treatment processes for the cultivation effluent. Microalgal strain selection would be a more
feasible approach; selection of a strain with resistance or non-susceptibility to biological
contamination would be a key issue for mass cultivation [38,39]. Alternatively, control of
environmental (e.g., light, temperature) and operational (e.g., hydraulic and biomass retention,
nutrient supply, pH) parameters is a cost-effective strategy to reduce biological contamination in
microalgal systems [40].

Currently, control of biological contamination in mass microalgal cultivation for liquid digestate
treatment has not been achieved. It is necessary to develop our understanding of interactions
between species to identify effective and economical methods to maintain microalgal
dominance.

Pollutant Removal
Nutrient removal efficiencies vary depending on the microalgal species, operational parameters,
and the characteristics of the liquid digestate. Achieving 100% removal of nitrogen and
phosphorus is possible under batch and semicontinuous operation [31–33]. However, not
all removed nutrients are removed by microalgae. For instance, under alkaline conditions excess
TAN removal can be caused by ammonia stripping, while phosphate removal can be caused by
the formation of insoluble precipitates [17].

Approximately 50–90% of chemical oxygen demand (COD) can be removed by mixotrophic

microalgae [10,17–21,26,30,36,41]. However, it is unlikely to achieve complete COD removal.
This is because the remaining COD may comprise recalcitrant organic compounds that are
hardly degradable by AD or through microalgal cultivation [17]. Alternatively, it may be attributed
to the fact that organic compounds, which can be either naturally excreted via microalgal growth
or suddenly released via cell lysis [42], have adverse effects on COD removal.

In addition to nutrient removal, microalgae are able to remove heavy metals [43]. Cheng et al.
found that microalgae successfully reduced heavy metal levels (lead, arsenic, mercury, and
cadmium) in liquid digestate, with removal efficiencies of 35–90%, while accumulating heavy
metals in their biomass. However, the heavy metal levels of biomass were still below the
maximum tolerable dietary levels for dairy cattle feed [10].

Integration of Microalgal Cultivation with Biogas Industry

The produced microalgal biomass can be further integrated into a biorefinery approach to
produce biochemicals, biofuels, animal and aquaculture feeds, and soil conditioners
[10,12,22,44–46]. Box 3 presents a case study of the integration of liquid digestate treatment
and microalgal cultivation. Biogas facilities not only provide abundant nitrogen and phosphorus
sources in liquid digestate but also supply sufficient CO2 as a carbon source for microalgal

Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 271

Box 3. Integration of Microalgal Digestate Treatment with Biogas Industry
The concept of microalgal cultivation coupled with biogas production is shown in Figure I. Microalgae can simultaneously
remove the nutrients in liquid digestate and fix CO2 via biomass accumulation. Produced microalgal biomass can be
further integrated into a biorefinery process to improve the economic feasibility and energy recovery. High-value
compounds, such as astaxanthin, carotenoids, beta-carotene, and omega-3 fatty acids, can be extracted from
microalgal biomass. The entire biomass or residual biomass after extraction can be used as animal feeds or soil
conditioners or converted to biofuels such as biodiesel (via esterification), bioethanol (via fermentation), biogas (via AD),
and electricity (via combustion) [10,12,22].

A 2-MWe agricultural biogas plant in Europe is modelled that annually consumes 46 000 t of biomass (fresh weight; e.g.,
maize silage, corn silage, grass silage, yard manure). Some water is added for dilution. Digestate production is 41 200 t of
liquid and 10 400 t of solid digestate separated via a screw press unit [6,12]. Table I provides a case study of microalgal
cultivation for liquid digestate treatment.

Allowing 90% conversion of nitrogen to biomass, 14.6 kg VS of microalgal biomass can be produced by treating 1 m3 of
liquid digestate. Carbon supply is far below the required level. Consequently, approximately 79% of the carbon should be
supplied by an external carbon source such as CO2. Low-cost CO2 is an important issue for large-scale microalgal
cultivation [12]. However, the biogas facility can provide abundant CO2. Only 11% of the CO2 in the biogas is required for
microalgal cultivation. CO2 can be derived from the biogas upgrading process (e.g., membrane separation) or from the
exhaust of the combined heat and power (CHP) process. Allowing currently achievable microalgal productivity in
outdoor raceway ponds during wastewater treatment (15 g VS/m2/d or 55 t VS/ha/a) [12], the land requirement for
microalgal cultivation is estimated as 11 ha; this can be realised for a rural biogas plant. By contrast, the direct field
application of liquid digestate would require 364 ha of land (based on the common maximum nutrient load of 170 kg N/
ha/a) [9]. It should be noted that the real CO2 demand may be significantly higher than the theoretical value, as CO2-to-cell
transfer is limited in a raceway pond system [45].

Upgrading Biomethane Area requirement for liquid

Biogas digestate treatment
CHP Electricity Land applicaon
Microalgal culvaon

AD Biochemicals
CO2
Biofuels
Microalgal biomass
Digestate Feeds
O2
Soil condioners
Solid Liquid Microalgal culvaon Reclaimed water

Ferliser Thermal chemical conversion

Figure I. Microalgal Cultivation for Liquid Digestate Treatment.

Table I. Outdoor Microalgal Cultivation for Treatment of Liquid Digestate from 2-MWe Biogas Plant
Parameter Result Remarks and Refs

Basic Elements of 2-MWe Agricultural Biogas Plant

Liquid digestate output 41 200 m3/a Assuming the density of liquid equal to
water [6]

Biogas output 10 160 000 m3/a Data from [3]

CO2 output 4 064 000 m3/a 40% CO2 content in biogas [47]

Microalgae Grown in Liquid Digestate

Microalgal biomass composition (mass C 52.4%; H 7.5%; O 29.7%; N C106H181O45N16P [27]

percentage of VS) 9.2%; P 1.3%

Main nutrients in liquid digestate TN 1500 mg/l; TP 210 mg/l; Typical values in Box 2
total carbon (TC) 2000 mg/l

Microalgal biomass production per m3 14.6 kg VS/m3 90% of TN to biomass conversion

liquid digestate treatment

272 Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4

 Table I. (continued)
Outstanding Questions
Parameter Result Remarks and Refs What is the most cost-effective strategy
TC in microalgal biomass per m3 liquid 7.7 kg/m3 for the control of biological contamina-
digestate treatment tion (e.g., bacteria, foreign microalgae)
during long-term outdoor microalgal
Carbon in microalgae sourced 1.6 kg/m3 80% TC to biomass conversion cultivation for digestate treatment?
from liquid digestate

External carbon requirement 6.1 kg/m3 equal to 22.2 kg Can the quality of reclaimed water
CO2/m3 derived from microalga-based diges-
tate treatment achieve discharge
Area productivity of microalgae 15 g VS/m2/d or 55 t VS/ha/a In raceway pond [12] standards without additional post-
3 treatment processes?
Area capacity for liquid digestate 3742 m /ha Based on microalgal productivity and
treatment by microalgae biomass yield from liquid digestate
What is the most economical and sus-
External CO2 fixation 83.2 t/ha Based on area treatment capacity and
tainable microalgal processing pathway?
external CO2 requirement

Microalgal Cultivation for Treating Liquid Digestate from 2-MWe Agricultural Biogas Plant

Area requirement 11 ha

Annual external CO2 requirement 917 t/a

CO2 fixed in biogas 11%

Annual microalgal biomass output 603 t VS/a

Annual microalgal energy equivalent 13 266 GJ/a 22 GJ/t VS of energy density

cultivation. One m3 of liquid digestate can be used as the nutrient source to produce 14.6 kg
volatile solids (VS) of microalgae while fixing 22.2 kg of CO2 in biogas via microalgal photosyn-
thesis. For a 2-MWe biogas plant, an area of 11 ha is expected for liquid digestate treatment,
providing 603 t VS/a of microalgal biomass (13 266 GJ of energy equivalent or 316 t oil
equivalent). This is equivalent to 6% of the energy in the biogas (ca. 210 TJ). The land
requirement for microalgal cultivation is only approximately 3% of the direct land application
(11 ha versus 364 ha). Furthermore, microalgae can be continuously cultivated around the year
to treat digestate. Thus, the environmental risks associated with digestate storage and transport
to field can be minimised.

Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives

Microalgae can efficiently extract the nutrients from biogas digestate while providing high-value
biomass for biorefinery applications. Current developments of microalga-based digestate
treatment are significant; however, there remain many challenges that need to be addressed
(see Outstanding Questions). More research work should be devoted to the following areas.
(i) An external carbon source can significantly boost microalgal growth in digestate. CO2
derived from biogas is a desirable inorganic carbon source that can enhance the photosyn-
thesis of microalgae. Alternatively, low-cost organic carbon sources have the potential to
markedly increase microalgal productivity. Two-stage fermentation may be used to
realise such a process. In the first stage, the hydrolytic reactor can produce an effluent
rich in VFAs, part of which can be mixed with the liquid digestate obtained from the second,
methanogenic reactor to improve mixotrophic microalgal growth.
(ii) Most of the current studies are conducted under indoor batch conditions. For future
application in the biogas industry, the stability and performance of long-term microalgal
cultivation for digestate treatment needs to be evaluated under outdoor continuous opera-
tion, with particular focus on pollutant removal efficiencies, biomass productivity, and quality.
The microalgal process is efficient in the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from digestate;
however, it may be less efficient for the removal of other pollutants such as COD and heavy
metals. The reclaimed water quality should be carefully examined. Furthermore, the control
strategies associated with biological contamination (e.g., bacteria, foreign microalgae) still
need to be comprehensively investigated.

Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 273

(iii) Selection, breeding, and engineering of high-performance microalgae can efficiently enhance
the digestate treatment process. System engineering is encouraged to enhance mass transfer
from nutrients to cells and to improve the overall performance of microalgal cultivation.
(iv) The extraction of high-value chemicals can improve the economic feasibility of microalgal
cultivation; however, the global demands for such chemicals are relatively small. Production
of microalgal biofuels and animal and aquaculture feeds are encouraged. Various microalgal
harvesting and conversion processes require significantly different energy input and chemi-
cal usage; the pathway choice is very much dependent on the final use of the microalgal
products. More detailed analyses of energy, greenhouse gas emission, and economic
feasibility in microalgal cultivation, harvesting, and conversion based on digestate treatment
should be conducted.

Acknowledgments
This opinion article is based on work supported by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under grant nos 12/RC/2302 and 12/
RC/2305s2. Researchers are employed by the SFI centre Marine Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI). Industrial funding is
provided by Gas Networks Ireland through The Green Gas Innovation Group and by ERVIA. The authors thank Dr David Wall
and Mr Markus Voelklein for the helpful suggestions. A.X. acknowledges Chongqing University for start-up funds under the
‘One Hundred Talents Program’.

References
1. IEA Bioenergy (2015) Task 37 Country Reports Summary. www.iea- 17. Tan, X. et al. (2014) Chlorella pyrenoidosa cultivation using anaer-
biogas.net/ obic digested starch processing wastewater in an airlift circulation
2. Li, J. (2015) Biogas policy in China. In 3rd China International photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 170, 538–548
Bioenergy and Biomass Utilization Summit, pp. 203–207 www. 18. Yang, L. et al. (2015) Nutrients removal and lipids production
bbs-summit.com/en by Chlorella pyrenoidosa cultivation using anaerobic digested
3. Murphy, J. et al. (2011) Biogas from crop digestion. IEA Bioenergy starch wastewater and alcohol wastewater. Bioresour. Technol.
Task 37, 1–23 www.iea-biogas.net 181, 54–61

4. Borjesson, P. and Mattiasson, B. (2008) Biogas as a resource- 19. Xu, J. et al. (2015) Nutrient removal and biogas upgrading by
efficient vehicle fuel. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 7–13 integrating freshwater algae cultivation with piggery anaerobic
digestate liquid treatment. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99,
5. Nkoa, R. (2014) Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil
6493–6501
fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 34, 473–492 20. Zhao, Y. et al. (2015) Performance of three microalgal strains in
biogas slurry purification and biogas upgrade in response to
6. Fuchs, W. and Drosg, B. (2013) Assessment of the state of the art
various mixed light-emitting diode light wavelengths. Bioresour.
of technologies for the processing of digestate residue from
Technol. 187, 338–345
anaerobic digesters. Water Sci. Technol. 67, 1984–1993
21. Serejo, M.L. et al. (2015) Influence of biogas flow rate on biomass
7. Monlau, F. et al. (2015) New opportunities for agricultural digestate
composition during the optimization of biogas upgrading in
valorization: current situation and perspectives. Energy Environ.
microalgal–bacterial processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49,
Sci. 8, 2600–2621
3228–3236
8. Levine, R.B. et al. (2011) Neochloris oleoabundans grown on
22. Wang, L. et al. (2010) Anaerobic digested dairy manure as a
anaerobically digested dairy manure for concomitant nutrient
nutrient supplement for cultivation of oil-rich green microalgae
removal and biodiesel feedstock production. Biomass Bioenerg.
Chlorella sp. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2623–2628
35, 40–49
23. Richmond, A. (2004) Handbook of Microalgal Culture: Biotech-
9. Lukehurst, C.T. et al. (2010) Utilisation of digestate from biogas
nology and Applied Phycology, Blackwell
plants as biofertiliser. IEA Bioenergy Task 37, 1–22 www.
iea-biogas.net 24. Uggetti, E. et al. (2014) Anaerobic digestate as substrate for
microalgae culture: the role of ammonium concentration on the
10. Cheng, J. et al. (2015) Growth optimisation of microalga mutant at
microalgae productivity. Bioresour. Technol. 152, 437–443
high CO2 concentration to purify undiluted anaerobic digestion
effluent of swine manure. Bioresour. Technol. 177, 240–246 25. Park, J. et al. (2010) Ammonia removal from anaerobic digestion
effluent of livestock waste using green alga Scenedesmus sp.
11. Golueke, C.G. and Oswald, W.J. (1959) Biological conversion of
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 8649–8657
light energy to the chemical energy of methane. Appl. Microbiol. 7,
219–227 26. Akerstrom, A.M. et al. (2014) Biomass production and nutrient
removal by Chlorella sp as affected by sludge liquor concentration.
12. Lundquist, T.J. et al. (2010) A Realistic Technology and Engineer-
J. Environ. Manag. 144, 118–124
ing Assessment of Algae Biofuel Production, Energy Biosciences
Institute 27. Peccia, J. et al. (2013) Nitrogen supply is an important driver of
sustainable microalgae biofuel production. Trends Biotechnol. 31,
13. Zhu, L. (2015) Microalgal culture strategies for biofuel production:
134–138
a review. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 9, 801–814
28. Rajagopal, R. et al. (2013) A critical review on inhibition of anaero-
14. Markou, G. and Georgakakis, D. (2011) Cultivation of filamentous
bic digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour. Technol.
cyanobacteria (blue–green algae) in agro-industrial wastes and
143, 632–641
wastewaters: a review. Appl. Energy 88, 3389–3401
29. Dickinson, K.E. et al. (2015) Simultaneous remediation of nutrients
15. Wang, J. et al. (2014) Mixotrophic cultivation of microalgae for
from liquid anaerobic digestate and municipal wastewater by the
biodiesel production: status and prospects. Appl. Biochem. Bio-
microalga Scenedesmus sp AMDD grown in continuous chemo-
technol. 172, 3307–3329
stats. J. Appl. Microbiol. 118, 75–83
16. Katarzyna, C. and Facundo-Joaquin, M-R. (2004) Kinetic and
30. Prajapati, S.K. et al. (2014) Bioconversion of algae to methane and
stoichiometric relationships of the energy and carbon metabolism
subsequent utilization of digestate for algae cultivation: a closed
in the culture of microalgae. Biotechnology 3, 21–34

274 Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4

 loop bioenergy generation process. Bioresour. Technol. 158, 42. Hadj-Romdhane, F. et al. (2013) The culture of Chlorella vulgaris in
174–180 a recycled supernatant: effects on biomass production and
31. Cai, T. et al. (2013) Cultivation of Nannochloropsis sauna using medium quality. Bioresour. Technol. 132, 285–292
anaerobic digestion effluent as a nutrient source for biofuel pro- 43. Alam, M.A. et al. (2015) Enhanced removal of Zn2+ or Cd2+ by the
duction. Appl. Energy 108, 486–492 flocculating Chlorella vulgaris JSC-7. J. Hazard. Mater. 289, 38–45
32. Cai, T. et al. (2013) Comparison of Synechocystis sp PCC6803 44. Larkum, A.W.D. et al. (2012) Selection, breeding and engineering
and Nannochloropsis salina for lipid production using artificial of microalgae for bioenergy and biofuel production. Trends Bio-
seawater and nutrients from anaerobic digestion effluent. Biore- technol. 30, 198–205
sour. Technol. 144, 255–260 45. Christenson, L. and Sims, R. (2011) Production and harvesting of
33. Ji, F. et al. (2015) Fed-batch cultivation of Desmodesmus sp microalgae for wastewater treatment, biofuels, and bioproducts.
in anaerobic digestion wastewater for improved nutrient removal Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 686–702
and biodiesel production. Bioresour. Technol. 184, 116–122 46. Passos, F. and Ferrer, I. (2015) Influence of hydrothermal pretreat-
34. Cai, T. et al. (2013) Nutrient recovery from wastewater streams by ment on microalgal biomass anaerobic digestion and bioenergy
microalgae: status and prospects. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 19, production. Water Res. 68, 364–373
360–369 47. Xia, A. et al. (2015) How do we optimize third-generation algal
35. Ward, A.J. et al. (2014) Anaerobic digestion of algae biomass: a biofuels? Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 9, 358–367
review. Algal Res. 5, 204–214 48. Posadas, E. et al. (2014) Microalgae-based agro-industrial waste-
36. Wang, L. et al. (2010) Semi-continuous cultivation of Chlorella water treatment: a preliminary screening of biodegradability. J.
vulgaris for treating undigested and digested dairy manures. Appl. Appl. Phycol. 26, 2335–2345
Biochem. Biotechnol. 162, 2324–2332 49. Ji, F. et al. (2014) Biomass production and nutrients removal by a
37. Erkelens, M. et al. (2014) Microalgae digestate effluent as a growth new microalgae strain Desmodesmus sp in anaerobic digestion
medium for Tetraselmis sp in the production of biofuels. Bioresour. wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 161, 200–207
Technol. 167, 81–86 50. Kumar, M.S. et al. (2010) Influence of nutrient loads, feeding
38. Wang, H. et al. (2013) The contamination and control of biological frequency and inoculum source on growth of Chlorella vulgaris
pollutants in mass cultivation of microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. in digested piggery effluent culture medium. Bioresour. Technol.
128, 745–750 101, 6012–6018
39. Day, J.G. et al. (2012) Overcoming biological constraints to enable 51. Hollinshead, W.D. et al. (2014) Boosting D-lactate production in
the exploitation of microalgae for biofuels. Bioresour. Technol. engineered cyanobacteria using sterilized anaerobic digestion
109, 245–251 effluents. Bioresour. Technol. 169, 462–467
40. Park, J.B.K. et al. (2011) Wastewater treatment high rate 52. Singh, M. et al. (2011) Microalgal system for treatment of effluent
algal ponds for biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. 102, from poultry litter anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
35–42 10841–10848
41. Yan, C. and Zheng, Z. (2014) Performance of mixed LED light 53. Franchino, M. et al. (2013) Growth of three microalgae strains and
wavelengths on biogas upgrade and biogas fluid removal by nutrient removal from an agro-zootechnical digestate. Chemo-
microalga Chlorella sp. Appl. Energy 113, 1008–1014 sphere 92, 738–744

Trends in Biotechnology, April 2016, Vol. 34, No. 4 275