Accepted Manuscript: Bioresource Technology
Accepted Manuscript: Bioresource Technology
Review
Kai Ling Yu, Beng Fye Lau, Pau Loke Show, Hwai Chyuan Ong, Tau Chuan
Ling, Wei-Hsin Chen, Ng Eng Poh, Jo-Shu Chang
PII: S0960-8524(17)31314-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.009
Reference: BITE 18618
Please cite this article as: Yu, K.L., Lau, B.F., Show, P.L., Ong, H.C., Ling, T.C., Chen, W-H., Poh, N.E., Chang,
J-S., Recent developments on algal biochar production and characterization, Bioresource Technology (2017), doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.009
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Recent developments on algal biochar production and characterization
Kai Ling Yua, Beng Fye Laua, Pau Loke Showb, Hwai Chyuan Ongc, Tau Chuan Linga, Wei-
a
Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
b
Bioseparation Research Group, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering,
Taiwan.
e
School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, USM, Malaysia
f
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701,
Taiwan.
g
Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University,
1
Abstract
biofuels and other valuable products. However, since last decade, massive amount of interests
have turned to converting algal biomass into biochar. Due to their high nutrient content and
ion-exchange capacity, algal biochars can be used as soil amendment for agriculture purposes
or adsorbents in wastewater treatment for the removal of organic or inorganic pollutants. This
review describes the conventional (e.g., slow and microwave-assisted pyrolysis) and newly
developed (e.g., hydrothermal carbonization and torrefaction) methods used for the synthesis
algal biochar with biochar produced from other feedstocks are also presented. This review
aims to provide updated information on the development of algal biochar in terms of the
production methods and the characterization of its physical and chemical properties to justify
2
1. Introduction
Renewable energy such as biomass is receiving more attention on its applicability for
considered as a promising feedstock due to its wide distribution, rapid growth and high CO2
fixation efficiency (Chen et al., 2015b; Roberts et al., 2015a). Growing algal biomass is a
torrefaction is commendable for further utilizing the algal biomass in the context of
economic feasibility of biochar production process with a faster rate, higher yield, and better
quality for applications (e.g., higher value applications of biochars other than as fertilizer,
applications)
under limited oxygen (O2) supply at a relatively low temperature (Alhashimi & Aktas, 2017;
Chang et al., 2015). The conversion of wet algal biomass into algal char can occur at a
relatively moderate thermal condition in a short time under batch processing conditions
(Heilmann et al., 2010). The composition of biochar varies with the types of feedstock. For
example, microalgal biochar consists of large aggregates with irregular porosity. These
features vary from the structure of lignocellulose biochar produced after thermal
decomposition treatment (Torri et al., 2011). Algal biochar has lower surface area and carbon
content, but higher cation exchange capacity compared to lignocellulose biochar. The higher
pH properties of algal biochar can balance acidified soils, while the higher nutrient content of
3
nitrogen, ash and inorganic elements are beneficial for soil amendment in agriculture
organic functional groups and inorganic minerals (Awad et al., 2017; Johansson et al., 2016).
However, selection of cheap raw bio-materials with better properties and easy preparation
steps of bio-adsorbent still present major challenges for the application of biochar in the
conventional wastewater treatment (Inyang et al., 2016). Microalgae have been studied
extensively as a potential biosorbent for the removal of organic and inorganic pollutants due
to their biosorption capacity attributed by a large amount of functional groups (Guo et al.,
2016; Zeraatkar et al., 2016). Those specific functional groups on microalgal biochar lead to
some special physic-chemical properties that could enhance its adsorption efficiency for
organic contaminants (Zheng et al., 2017). The biorefinery model of microalgae that can
produce valuable biofuels and biochar simultaneously making it an interesting approach for
future research and development. Therefore, this review aims to provide the latest
such as pyrolysis, torrefaction and hydrothermal carbonization. This review also aims to
recommendation of research work related to algal biochar is also proposed in the review.
Figure 1 shows the schematic view of algal biomass production in renewable energy
and carbon sequestration. With the ability in nutrients uptake, algae possess a high growth
4
environment. The high nutrient content of algae makes it a suitable feedstock for biochar
production for the potential use in soil amendment and implement for long-term carbon
sequestration. Algal biochar derived from the remediation of wastewater could provide a
notable benefit in the future by utilizing biomass for carbon negative energy generation and
application to the environment (Bird et al., 2011). However, the high nutrient content of algal
biomass makes it a disadvantage in pyrolysis product distribution where more bio-oil product
can be obtained. One way to solve this problem is to extract the lipids from algae for bio-oil
production, while the residues are further used for biochar production to the context of
biorefinery (Wang et al., 2013). Algae have been known as one of the promising sustainable
energy feedstocks for the future without the dependence on fossil fuels and their growth can
efficiently reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Microalgae are popular choice for biofuel
production since it is easy to cultivate them in a large amount under various environments
(Vassilev & Vassileva, 2016). All types of biofuels (i.e., solid, liquid and gas biofuels) can be
generated from microalgae using several conversion methods such as direct combustion,
the success of algal technology in fuel production, other value-added co-products such as biochar
can be produced simultaneously from algal feedstock for a biorefinery concept (Foley et al., 2011);
Biochar is gaining more attention on its long term advantage in carbon sequestration
and application in agriculture for soil amendment (Ennis et al., 2012). Biochar technology
involved the CO2 uptake through photosynthesis. The captured carbon undergoes conversion
storage through soil amendment (Sohi et al., 2009). Biochar production differs from other
Biochar Initiative (2008) estimated that biochar production has the potential of mitigation of
5
climate change by providing 3.67 Gt CO2 per year using only biomass wastes. Biochar is
biochar’s ability in mitigation of climate change at global scale is recognized (Molina et al.,
2009).
As a strategy to store captured carbon for a long time on impact to greenhouse gas
accumulation, biomass is converted into biochar that has more than 90% carbon (Heilmann et
well-suited to serve as a fertilizer in agriculture soil (Torri et al., 2011). With all the
advantages of algal biochar, converting algal biomass into biochar can be economically
feasible for algal production enterprise (Bryant et al., 2012). However, to date there is still
very limited literature regarding algal biochar and its utilization. This may markedly hinder
the future development and application of algae-based biochar (Shukla et al., 2017),
suggesting the need for a comprehensive literature review in this promising area.
synthesizing biochar is through slow pyrolysis which gives a high char yield. Hydrothermal
Torrefaction is a pre-treatment method that has been studied extensively to upgrade biomass
into carbon-rich solid fuel such as biochar (Chen et al., 2015d; Kumar et al., 2017). Details of
6
Pyrolysis is one of the most promising technologies for converting biomass into
valuable biofuels as well as biochars. There are several types of pyrolysis based on their
operating conditions such as the conventional slow pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis and also the latest
composition of solid, liquid and gaseous products according to their operating parameters,
such as temperature, heating rate and residence time. Slow pyrolysis gives the highest yield
of biochar while fast pyrolysis gives the highest yield of bio-oil with biochar as by-product
Pyrolysis is the heating of biomass with the absence of oxygen or air at a given rate
typically at a temperature range of around 300-700 ℃ (Chen et al., 2015c). The products
obtained from pyrolysis are determined by several factors, in particular the temperature and
heating rate (Basu, 2010). Biochar yield increases with a decrease in pyrolysis temperature,
an increase in the residence time, and a preferable low heating rate. In addition, feedstock
properties, such as moisture content and particle size, also significantly affect the yield of
biochar produced via pyrolysis (Tripathi et al., 2016). Slow pyrolysis, the conventional
process in charcoal production, could yield the maximum amount of biochar from biomass
compared to other processes, such as fast pyrolysis and gasification (Chaiwong et al., 2012;
Mohan et al., 2014). Up to 50% of the carbon from biomass may be stored in the stable
biochar through pyrolysis (Bird et al., 2011). Biomass undergoes slow pyrolysis process with
a vapour residence time from several minutes to hours for char production (Du, 2013).
Vapours are restrained and reacted with solid phase extensively for more char yield at the end
of the process (Mohan et al., 2014). Slow pyrolysis is, in general, carried at low heating rates
of 0.1-1 K/s with a residence time of around 450-550 s. Pre-pyrolysis happens at the
7
beginning, followed by solid decomposition corresponding to the high rate pyrolysis process
to form pyrolysis products. Decomposition of the char finally occurs at a very low rate and
carbon-rich biochar is formed (Suganya et al., 2016). Most of the traditional slow pyrolysis
used fixed bed reactors where heating is provided by heated surface but there are studies that
looked into alternative heating methods such as microwave heating (Du, 2013; Wan et al.,
2009).
in the production of biochar, bio-oil and syngas and it has been successfully applied to plant
residues, such as wood and sewage sludge (Lei et al., 2011). Some of the advantages of
microwave pyrolysis are high products yield, reduction of harmful chemical in bio-oil, energy
pyrolysis over conventional pyrolysis are (1) uniform microwave heating that is applicable on
larger biomass particles, (2) production of higher heating value syngas that can be used for
in-situ electricity for microwave generation, (3) cleaner products due to no agitation and
fluidization in the process, and (4) microwave heating is a mature technology with scale-up
feasibility (Du, 2013). There are some differences between conventional slow pyrolysis and
used typical heating process, while microwave pyrolysis required some pre-treatment and
catalysts prior to heating. Moreover, in conventional pyrolysis, the pyrolysis gas is the by-
product, while bio-oil, hot water and non-condensable gases can be obtained after
lignocellulosic biomass but reports on the production of algal biochar via microwave heating
are limited (Wan et al., 2009). Biochar that undergoes further chemical or thermal processing
8
after production can be transformed into activated carbon (Spokas et al., 2011). However,
previous study mentioned that the decrease of functional groups in biochar due to the release
of volatiles during pyrolysis would result in a challenge when using it as an adsorbent (Wang
et al., 2015). Microwave-assisted pyrolysis can be used in future scale-up production from
algal products into biochar for applications such as soil fertilizer due to its economic
production process. Previous reports on the algal biochar production via the pyrolysis process
3.2 Torrefaction
atmospheric pressure at the temperature between 200 and 300℃ under an inert condition in
the absence of oxygen (Chen et al., 2014a; Chen et al., 2015a). The process partly
decomposes biomass and produces a solid product (called torrefied biomass or char) with
high carbon content. A general sketch of torrefaction process in algal biochar production is
shown in Figure 2. Torrefaction is used for biofuel production from microalgae and its prime
reactions to reduce major limitations of biomass, upgrade biomass quality and alter the
combustion behaviour (Nhuchhen et al., 2014). By altering the combustion behavior, fuel
power plant. Torrefaction of microalgal biomass grown by using flue gas from the thermal
power plant can be made suitable for co-firing in a pulverized coal power (Wu et al., 2012).
The thermal pre-treatment of torrefaction can be divided into dry and wet torrefaction, which
of the characteristics of dry and wet torrefaction is shown in Table 2. The major advantage of
9
wet torrefaction over dry torrefaction is its ability to produce energy-dense product within a
short residence time due to high heat transfer rate in the aqueous media (Coronella et al.,
2012; Hoekman et al., 2013). In wet torrefaction, microalgae are treated under hot
compressed water, producing a solid product that has high calorific value, better
hydrophobicity, and lower ash content (Bach et al., 2017b). Torrefaction could produce
biochar with high calorific value or higher heating value so it can be used as an alternative
feedstock for clean energy production than fossil fuel. The hydrophobicity of biochar
originating from the surface functional groups and the lower ash content are important
from soil and water. Bach et al. (2017a) showed that, after wet torrefaction, at least 61.5% of
energy in the microalgal biomass is retained. The calorific value intensified up to 21 % and
there is a decrease in the ash content of the microalgae. Torrefaction is usually carried out at a
low temperature and short residence time under low heating rate to give a higher yield of
solid product (Deng et al., 2009; Nhuchhen et al., 2014). (Wu et al., 2012) reported that the
solid yield decreased when the torrefaction temperature is increased. The effect of residence
time on the mass yield of torrefied biomass at 300 ℃ shows the mass yield decreased with an
increase in the residence time. The study concluded that temperature influenced the mass
yield more than residence time. (Chen et al., 2014b) shows the isothermal and non-isothermal
Microalgae are classified based on the torrefaction temperature, light, mild and severe
torrefaction from the maximum decomposition rate and weight loss. Non-isothermal
Uemura et al. (2015) reported the yields of solid, liquid and gas for a series of torrefaction
temperature on a macroalga Laminaria japonica. The solid yield decreased when the
10
torrefaction temperature was increased. The decrease in solid yield may be attributed to the
both the liquid and gas yields increased when the temperature was increased in conjunction
with a decrease of solid yield with torrefaction temperature. (Bach et al., 2017a) mentioned
that the solid yield decreased with an increase in temperature and residence time. The solid
yield decreased from 61.68% to 52.58% when the temperature was increased from 160 °C to
180 °C. The solid yield decreased from 62.92% to 51.84% when the residence time increased
from 5 min to 30 min. Chen et al. (2016) showed that the solid yield of 51.3-93.9% in the
torrefied microalgae residue at the temperature ranged from 200-300 ℃ with a residence time
of 15-60 min. Previous study also shows the solid yield of 50.8-95.7% in microalgae
Chlamydomonas sp. JSC4 residue after torrefaction at temperature 200-300 ℃ for 15-60 min.
optimum temperature of 250 ℃ or below for less weight loss and higher energy densification
(Chen, 2015). The impact of torrefaction upon biomass properties has been extensively
investigated in the last decade. However, there is limited literature on the study of algal
biochar from torrefaction process. As torrified algal biomass is a high quality and
environmental friendly solid product that may offer considerable opportunities for worldwide
gained more attention in the recent years due to its environmental friendly and cost
effectiveness (Erlach et al., 2012; Xiao et al., 2012). HTC is a distinctive process that
water where biochar is produced at lower temperatures (180-260 ℃) and elevated water or
steam pressures (Libra et al., 2011; Titirici et al., 2012). The process takes place in water
11
under a self-generated pressures being less than 10 bar with water as solvent (Titirici et al.,
2012). This process can be suitable for concentrating carbon of wet biomass where no drying
is required prior to pyrolysis, making it a potential alternative for treatment of some waste
hydrochar (Libra et al., 2011). HTC produce a higher product in a shorter period of time and
requires lower energy expense than conventional carbonization process (Tekin et al., 2014).
The advantages of the HTC process include (1) required only low carbonization temperature,
(2) can be synthesized in the aqueous phase, (3) inexpensive process, (4) renewable materials
can be used as sources such as biomass and for the use of value-added chemicals, such as
nanoparticles in the structure (Kubo, 2013). Char product obtained from HTC has the
(e.g., -OH, -C=O, -COOH); easily controlled surface chemistry and electronic properties
biochar, bio-oil and gaseous products by manipulating process variables such as temperature,
time of reaction, feedstock, the presence of catalysts and pressure (Tekin et al., 2014).
Temperature is the most influential variable in the HTC process followed by residence time
and types of feedstock (Nizamuddin et al., 2017). Lower temperature tends to give a higher
yield of solid product compared to higher temperatures by affecting its physical and chemical
characteristics. At a higher temperature, the carbon content is higher whereas the hydrogen
and oxygen content is lower. This results in a formation of biochar with greater higher
heating value (HHV). Char produced from HTC of microalgae has a unique composition and
with bituminous coal quality (Heilmann et al., 2010). Process conditions were under a lower
temperature of 200 ℃ with 0.5 h of reaction time for effective carbonization and production
of algal char. The brief reaction time in the batch process suggested the development of a
12
continuous process for HTC processing of algae. There are no specific catalytic agents that
significantly enhanced the carbonization process and/or increase the yield of biochar. The
most conceivable alternative pathway proposed in the study was carbonization via a
Table 3. As there is very limited literature on algal char production from the HTC process, it
would be an interesting topic for future studies. HTC process offers the advantages of
lowering the production cost and shortening the time needed for the production of biochar.
This can be achieved by utilizing algal biomass residue and converting it into more valuable
biofuels and other products. HTC represents a feasible alternative way to convert wet
importance in determining their potential applications. The physical and chemical properties
of biochar produced from both microalgae and macroalgae are discussed as follows.
Previous studies have demonstrated that algal samples could yield relatively high
amounts of biochar per unit biomass. However, comparative analysis of biochar derived from
microalgae and macroalgae in terms of their yields under similar experimental conditions is
still lacking. As shown in Table 4, the yield of biochar derived from micro- and macroalgae
(on a dry weight basis) ranged from 20.0-63.0% and 8.1-62.4%, respectively. There are
attempts to investigate the factors which affect the yield of algal biochar. Ronsse et al. (2013),
for instance, reported that the yield of algal biochar is lower than those of other
13
lignocellulosic biomass, namely pine wood, wheat straw, and green waste. The yield
decreased when the pyrolysis temperature and residence time were increased from 300 to
750 °C and from 10 to 60 min, respectively. Similar results were also observed by Tag et al.
(2016) who postulated that such observations could be due to the differences in the chemical
components between algal and terrestrial biomass, particularly for the composition of cell
wall. Besides that, the high ash content in algal samples might act catalytically during
The higher heating value (HHV) is the amount of heat released when the sample (fuel)
measured using a bomb calorimeter in the laboratory. As shown in Table 4, biochars derived
from microalgae (7.6-23.0 MJ/kg) and macroalgae (5.2-21.2 MJ/kg) have comparable HHV.
In general, the HHV of algal biochars is lower than that of lignocellulosic biochars (which
has been reported to exceed 30 MJ/kg), is likely attributed to a lower carbon content but
The physical properties of biochars, such as their surface area, porosity, and pore
volume, are routinely analyzed. The Brunauer-Emmet-Teller (BET) surface area of biochar
can be estimated using a surface area analyzer while a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
can be used to profile the surface topography and particle structure. The surface area of algal
biochar is generally low but some studies reported that an increase in the pyrolysis
temperature could result in a higher surface area (Bird et al., 2011). Ronsse et al. (2013)
found that the ash content in the biomass is negatively correlated with the surface area of the
resulting biochar. Wang et al. (2013) reported that the surface area of biochar derived from C.
vulgaris (2.4 m2/g) was deemed to be low relative to biochar obtained from lignocellulosic
14
biomass. Working with biochar derived from macroalgae, Roberts et al. (2015b) reported that
biochar produced from the macroalgae Eucheuma sp. has a significantly higher surface area
(30.03-34.82 m2/g) than those of other species which ranged from 1.29-8.87 m2/g.
Findings thus far have indicated that biochar derived from algal samples has distinct
structure and characteristics when compared with the biomass before subjected to pyrolysis.
For instance, Wang et al. (2013) observed that the particles of biochar derived from a green
microalga, Chlorella vulgaris, are compact and irregular, and these are different from the
structure of the feedstock before pyrolysis. Similar results were also reported for the biochar
derived from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Torri et al. (2011). These observations are in
contrast with biochars from lignocellulosic biomass, which normally retain their feedstock’s
structure. Table 4 summarizes the physical properties of biochars derived from several
In proximate analysis, the moisture, volatile matter, ash, and fixed carbon content of
the samples are measured. Ultimate analysis (also termed as elemental analysis), on the other
hand, includes the determination of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur, and oxygen within
the samples. As shown in Table 5, algal biochars are typically low in C but high in N and
minerals (ash) contents. The low C content, in comparison to those derived from
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). Previous work has
provided insights into the abundance of various inorganic elements in algal biochar and
15
enables comparison with biochar derived from other feedstock. For example, Wang et al.
(2013) reported that biochar derived from C. vulgaris contained higher concentrations of
various trace elements, including P, K, Mg and Ca, compared to biochar from lignocellulosic
biomass, In a separate study, biochars produced from both red and brown seaweeds have high
concentrations of N (0.3-2.8%), P (0.5-6.6 g/kg), and K (5.1-119 g/kg) (Roberts et al., 2015b).
Results from both studies, when taken together, seem to suggest that algal biochar has good
4.2.3 pH
As shown in Table 5, all algal biochar was found to be alkaline. The pH of biochar
derived from macroalgae ranges from 7.6-13.7, whereas little information is available
regarding those derived from microalgae. The pH of biochar is found to be affected by the
pyrolysis temperature and the algal samples. According to the study by Ronsse et al. (2013),
the pH of biochar is correlated to the presence of oxygen functionalities in the biochar. Tag et
al. (2016) noted that the pH of algal biochar (8.7-13.7) increased with an increase in the
pyrolysis temperature (250-600 °C). A plausible explanation is the increase in the relative ash
content in the biochar caused a rise in the pH of the biochar especially under severe pyrolysis
The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of biochar is a measure of the ability of biochar
to adsorb cation nutrients. In other words, a biochar with high CEC exerts beneficial effect
by preventing nutrient leaching in the soil. Roberts et al. (2015b) showed that seaweed
biochar samples have negligible or no exchangeable Al, but have high levels of the remaining
exchangeable cations such as Ca, K, Mg and Na. In another study by Tag et al. (2016), algal
biochar produced at different pyrolysis temperature was found to have higher CEC (25.6-52.6
cmol/kg) than that produced from vine pruning (32.2-61.0 cmol/kg) and orange pomace
16
(25.6-52.6 cmol/kg) under similar experimental conditions. As CEC correlated with the ash
content, it was suggested that the alkali and earth alkali metals in biomass promoted the
formation of O-containing surface functional groups in the resulting biochar (Cely et al.,
2015)
the various functional groups in algal biochar. This technique can be used to compare the
chemical profiles of biochar produced under different conditions, as well as between the raw
biomass and the resulting biochar. The latter is exemplified by the work of Biswas et al.
(2017) whereby FT-IR spectra demonstrated that, following hydrothermal liquefaction, the
macromolecular crystal structure of the algae was disrupted and products (biochar and bio-oil)
were formed. Table 5 summarizes the chemical properties of biochar derived from some
In general, the method and temperature of pyrolysis are two important factors that
determine the physical and chemical properties of biochar (Jindo et al. (2014); (Mukome et
al., 2013). The operating conditions such as heating rate, reaction vessel, chemical activation,
residence time, and highest treatment temperature (HTT) also influence the properties of
biochar produced. The HHT is regarded to have the greatest effect on the physical properties
of biochar produced (Mukome et al., 2013). In a recent study, Palanisamy et al. (2017)
reported that biochar of C. vulgaris prepared at higher temperatures (450-600 °C) contained a
higher proportion of organic matter (C, H and N) than those produced at lower temperatures.
In addition, the type of feedstock used may affect the chemical composition of the
resulting biochar, such as the ash content, pH, H/C ratio, surface area, as well as cation and
17
anion exchange capabilities (Sun et al., 2014; Tag et al., 2016). These factors are of great
importance when comes to the applications of biochar, particularly in the agriculture sector.
wood, pomace, and nutshell, it was found that feedstock is a better predictor of variation in
the ash content and C/N ratio of biochar than pyrolysis temperature (Mukome et al. (2013).
However, when one feedstock is being considered, pyrolysis temperature is the best predictor
In terms of biochar production from algal species, the proportion and composition of
factors like species, habitat (e.g. fresh, brackish or saline environment), and other factors. It
Roberts et al. (2015b) found that biochars produced from red and brown seaweeds have
different elemental composition with biochars from red seaweeds have higher concentrations
of S and K and lower concentrations of C and H than biochars produced from the brown
seaweeds. There are also variations in most physicochemical characteristics of the biochar
between species collected from different locations especially the cation exchange capability
of the biochars. For instance, the exchangeable K in Undaria sp. (13-420 cmol/kg) and
location. Bird et al. (2012) also noted a difference in the yield and ash content of the
Chadophora vagabunda with their earlier work (Bird et al., 2011). These may be attributed to
moving to pilot scale production with commercial pyrolysis equipment rather than controlled
laboratory production, purity of the materials collected in the field, and lesser control over
pyrolysis conditions.
4.4 Comparison of algal biochar with biochars derived from different feedstocks
18
It is generally accepted that the first critical step in determining the utility and
applications of algal biochar is the quantification of the properties of algal biochar and a
comparison with biochar produced from other commonly used terrestrial biomass feedstocks
(Bird et al., 2011). Studies thus far have pointed to the fact that biochars produced from algal
samples are fundamentally different from those produced from lignocellulosic feedstock
(Bird et al., 2012; Maddi et al., 2011). In general, biochars produced from various algal
species tend to have low carbon content, surface area and cation exchange capability but high
in pH, nitrogen, and extractable inorganic nutrients including P, K, Ca and Mg. In contrast,
lignocellulosic materials-derived biochars tend to have higher carbon contents and cation
exchange capabilities with pH values usually lower than 7, and significantly lower ash and
The difference in the chemical profiles between algal and other lignocellulosic
biochar gives important implications in their applications. The algal biochar is likely to
provide significant direct nutrient benefits to soils and crop productivity, and are likely to be
particularly useful for application on acidic soils. However, they are volumetrically less able
to provide the carbon sequestration benefits that can be provided with the high-carbon-
content lignocellulosic biochars. Therefore, Roberts et al. (2015b) proposed that a blending of
seaweed and lignocellulosic biochars could provide a soil ameliorant that combines a high
Algal biochar could influence the global carbon sequestration on mitigation of climate
particular, the use of algal biochar as biosorbents in wastewater treatment should be studied
further. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of some of the challenges that may lie ahead,
19
such as cost effectiveness of the process and the fact that wastewater contains various
impurities that may interfere with the process. In addition, production of algal biochar via the
existing methods could be further enhanced with microwave-assisted technology, whereas the
biochar is indeed a promising approach that deserves more attention in the future.
continuous process.
In terms of the algal biomass to be used for biochar production, microalgae seem to be
a more promising feedstock when compared to macroalgae, in view of their advantages over
the latter, such as their rapid growth and the ease of cultivation and harvesting. Macroalgae,
on the other hand, require a larger area for cultivation and generally require a longer period of
cultivation time. The quality and quantity of macroalgal biomass are also greatly dependent
on varieties of abiotic and biotic factors. Moreover, microalgae are deemed to have higher
potential in biochar production due to their high nutrient contents which are suitable for the
use in agriculture. The recycling of microalgal residue after biofuel production for a
biorefinery concept is also feasible. Taken together, future research on different aspects
6. Conclusions
processes to produce algal biochar of different composition and properties for varying further
20
the current biochar production technologies. Characterization of algal biochar is important for
the understanding of their chemical and physical properties, which are useful for determining
their potential applications (such as fertilizer for agricultural purpose or adsorbent for water
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by University of Malaya under the SATU Joint Research
support from Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) under grant numbers of
References
1. Al-Hamamre, Z., Saidan, M., Hararah, M., Rawajfeh, K., Alkhasawneh, H.E., Al-
Shannag, M. 2017. Wastes and biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy
resources for Jordan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 295-314.
2. Alhashimi, H.A., Aktas, C.B. 2017. Life cycle environmental and economic
performance of biochar compared with activated carbon: A meta-analysis. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 118, 13-26.
3. Awad, Y.M., Lee, S.-E., Ahmed, M.B.M., Vu, N.T., Farooq, M., Kim, I.S., Kim, H.S.,
Vithanage, M., Usman, A.R.A., Al-Wabel, M., Meers, E., Kwon, E.E., Ok, Y.S. 2017.
Biochar, a potential hydroponic growth substrate, enhances the nutritional status and
growth of leafy vegetables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 581-588.
4. Aysu, T., Abd Rahman, N.A., Sanna, A. 2016. Catalytic pyrolysis of Tetraselmis and
Isochrysis microalgae by nickel ceria based catalysts for hydrocarbon production.
Energy, 103, 205-214.
5. Aysu, T., Sanna, A. 2015. Nannochloropsis algae pyrolysis with ceria-based catalysts
for production of high-quality bio-oils. Bioresour Technol, 194, 108-16.
21
6. Bach, Q.-V., Chen, W.-H., Lin, S.-C., Sheen, H.-K., Chang, J.-S. 2017a. Wet
torrefaction of microalga Chlorella vulgaris ESP-31 with microwave-assisted heating.
Energy Conversion and Management, 141, 163-170.
7. Bach, Q.-V., Chen, W.-H., Sheen, H.-K., Chang, J.-S. 2017b. Gasification kinetics of
raw and wet-torrefied microalgae Chlorella vulgaris ESP-31 in carbon dioxide.
Bioresource Technology.
8. Basu, P. 2010. Chapter 3 - Pyrolysis and Torrefaction. in: Biomass Gasification and
Pyrolysis, Academic Press. Boston, pp. 65-96.
9. Bird, M.I., Wurster, C.M., de Paula Silva, P.H., Bass, A.M., de Nys, R. 2011. Algal
biochar – production and properties. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), 1886-1891.
10. Bird, M.I., Wurster, C.M., De Paula Silva, P.H., Paul, N.A., De Nys, R. 2012. Algal
biochar: effects and applications. GCB Bioenergy, 4(1), 61-69.
11. Biswas, B., Arun Kumar, A., Bisht, Y., Singh, R., Kumar, J., Bhaskar, T. 2017. Effects
of temperature and solvent on hydrothermal liquefaction of Sargassum tenerrimum algae.
Bioresour Technol.
12. Boakye, P., Lee, C.W., Lee, W.M., Woo, S.H. 2016. The Cell Viability on Kelp and Fir
Biochar and the Effect on the Field Cultivation of Corn. Clean Technology, 22(1), 29-34.
13. Bordoloi, N., Narzari, R., Sut, D., Saikia, R., Chutia, R.S., Kataki, R. 2016.
Characterization of bio-oil and its sub-fractions from pyrolysis of Scenedesmus
dimorphus. Renewable Energy.
14. Broch, A., Jena, U., Hoekman, S., Langford, J. 2014. Analysis of Solid and Aqueous
Phase Products from Hydrothermal Carbonization of Whole and Lipid-Extracted Algae.
Energies, 7(1), 62.
15. Brownsort, P.A. 2009. Biomass pyrolysis processes: review of scope, control and
variability. Edinburgh: UK Biochar Research Center.
16. Bryant, H.L., Gogichaishvili, I., Anderson, D., Richardson, J.W., Sawyer, J.,
Wickersham, T., Drewery, M.L. 2012. The value of post-extracted algae residue. Algal
Research, 1(2), 185-193.
17. Cely, P., Gascó, G., Paz-Ferreiro, J., Méndez, A. 2015. Agronomic properties of
biochars from different manure wastes. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 111,
173-182.
18. Chaiwong, K., Kiatsiriroat, T., Vorayos, N., Thararax, C. 2012. Biochar production from
freshwater algae by slow pyrolysis. Maejo International Journal of Science and
Technology, 6(2).
22
19. Chaiwong, K., Kiatsiriroat, T., Vorayos, N., Thararax, C. 2013. Study of bio-oil and bio-
char production from algae by slow pyrolysis. Biomass and Bioenergy, 56, 600-606.
20. Chang, Y.-M., Tsai, W.-T., Li, M.-H. 2015. Chemical characterization of char derived
from slow pyrolysis of microalgal residue. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis,
111, 88-93.
21. Chen, W.-H. 2015. Microalgae oil: algae cultivation and harvest, algae residue
torrefaction and Diesel engine emissions tests. Aerosol and air quality research.
22. Chen, W.-H., Huang, M.-Y., Chang, J.-S., Chen, C.-Y. 2014a. Thermal decomposition
dynamics and severity of microalgae residues in torrefaction. Bioresource technology,
169, 258-264.
23. Chen, W.-H., Huang, M.-Y., Chang, J.-S., Chen, C.-Y. 2015a. Torrefaction operation
and optimization of microalga residue for energy densification and utilization. Applied
Energy, 154, 622-630.
24. Chen, W.-H., Huang, M.-Y., Chang, J.-S., Chen, C.-Y., Lee, W.-J. 2015b. An energy
analysis of torrefaction for upgrading microalga residue as a solid fuel. Bioresource
Technology, 185, 285-293.
25. Chen, W.-H., Lin, B.-J., Huang, M.-Y., Chang, J.-S. 2015c. Thermochemical conversion
of microalgal biomass into biofuels: a review. Bioresource technology, 184, 314-327.
26. Chen, W.-H., Peng, J., Bi, X.T. 2015d. A state-of-the-art review of biomass torrefaction,
densification and applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44, 847-866.
27. Chen, W.-H., Wu, Z.-Y., Chang, J.-S. 2014b. Isothermal and non-isothermal torrefaction
characteristics and kinetics of microalga Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N. Bioresource
technology, 155, 245-251.
28. Chen, Y.-C., Chen, W.-H., Lin, B.-J., Chang, J.-S., Ong, H.C. 2016. Impact of
torrefaction on the composition, structure and reactivity of a microalga residue. Applied
Energy, 181, 110-119.
29. Chiodo, V., Zafarana, G., Maisano, S., Freni, S., Urbani, F. 2016. Pyrolysis of different
biomass: Direct comparison among Posidonia Oceanica, Lacustrine Alga and White-
Pine. Fuel, 164, 220-227.
30. Conti, R., Fabbri, D., Vassura, I., Ferroni, L. 2016. Comparison of chemical and
physical indices of thermal stability of biochars from different biomass by analytical
pyrolysis and thermogravimetry. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 122, 160-
168.
23
31. Coronella, C.J., Yan, W., Reza, M.T., Vasquez, V.R. 2012. Method for wet torrefaction
of a biomass, Google Patents.
32. Deng, J., Wang, G.-j., Kuang, J.-h., Zhang, Y.-l., Luo, Y.-h. 2009. Pretreatment of
agricultural residues for co-gasification via torrefaction. Journal of Analytical and
Applied Pyrolysis, 86(2), 331-337.
33. Du, Z. 2013. Thermochemical conversion of microalgae for biofuel production,
University of Minnesota.
34. Ennis, C.J., Evans, A.G., Islam, M., Ralebitso-Senior, T.K., Senior, E. 2012. Biochar:
carbon sequestration, land remediation, and impacts on soil microbiology. Critical
reviews in environmental science and technology, 42(22), 2311-2364.
35. Erlach, B., Harder, B., Tsatsaronis, G. 2012. Combined hydrothermal carbonization and
gasification of biomass with carbon capture. Energy, 45(1), 329-338.
36. Foley, P.M., Beach, E.S., Zimmerman, J.B. 2011. Algae as a source of renewable
chemicals: opportunities and challenges. Green Chemistry, 13(6), 1399-1405.
37. Francavilla, M., Manara, P., Kamaterou, P., Monteleone, M., Zabaniotou, A. 2015.
Cascade approach of red macroalgae Gracilaria gracilis sustainable valorization by
extraction of phycobiliproteins and pyrolysis of residue. Bioresour Technol, 184, 305-13.
38. Gronnow, M.J., Budarin, V.L., Mašek, O., Crombie, K.N., Brownsort, P.A.,
Shuttleworth, P.S., Hurst, P.R., Clark, J.H. 2013. Torrefaction/biochar production by
microwave and conventional slow pyrolysis–comparison of energy properties. Gcb
Bioenergy, 5(2), 144-152.
39. Guo, W.-Q., Zheng, H.-S., Li, S., Du, J.-S., Feng, X.-C., Yin, R.-L., Wu, Q.-L., Ren, N.-
Q., Chang, J.-S. 2016. Removal of cephalosporin antibiotics 7-ACA from wastewater
during the cultivation of lipid-accumulating microalgae. Bioresource Technology, 221,
284-290.
40. Heilmann, S.M., Davis, H.T., Jader, L.R., Lefebvre, P.A., Sadowsky, M.J., Schendel,
F.J., Von Keitz, M.G., Valentas, K.J. 2010. Hydrothermal carbonization of microalgae.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(6), 875-882.
41. Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Robbins, C., Zielinska, B., Felix, L. 2013. Hydrothermal
carbonization (HTC) of selected woody and herbaceous biomass feedstocks. Biomass
Conversion and Biorefinery, 3(2), 113-126.
42. Inyang, M.I., Gao, B., Yao, Y., Xue, Y., Zimmerman, A., Mosa, A., Pullammanappallil,
P., Ok, Y.S., Cao, X. 2016. A review of biochar as a low-cost adsorbent for aqueous
24
heavy metal removal. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 46(4),
406-433.
43. Jindo, K., Mizumoto, H., Sawada, Y., Sanchez-Monedero, M.A., Sonoki, T. 2014.
Physical and chemical characterization of biochars derived from different agricultural
residues. Biogeosciences, 11(23), 6613-6621.
44. Johansson, C.L., Paul, N.A., de Nys, R., Roberts, D.A. 2016. Simultaneous biosorption
of selenium, arsenic and molybdenum with modified algal-based biochars. Journal of
Environmental Management, 165, 117-123.
45. Jung, K.-W., Jeong, T.-U., Kang, H.-J., Ahn, K.-H. 2016. Characteristics of biochar
derived from marine macroalgae and fabrication of granular biochar by entrapment in
calcium-alginate beads for phosphate removal from aqueous solution. Bioresource
Technology, 211, 108-116.
46. Kołtowski, M., Charmas, B., Skubiszewska-Zięba, J., Oleszczuk, P. 2017. Effect of
biochar activation by different methods on toxicity of soil contaminated by industrial
activity. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 136, 119-125.
47. Kubo, S. 2013. Nanostructured carbohydrate–derived carbonaceous materials. TANSO,
2013(258), 232-233.
48. Kumar, G., Shobana, S., Chen, W.-H., Bach, Q.-V., Kim, S.-H., Atabani, A.E., Chang,
J.-S. 2017. A review of thermochemical conversion of microalgal biomass for biofuels:
chemistry and processes. Green Chemistry, 19(1), 44-67.
49. Lei, H., Ren, S., Wang, L., Bu, Q., Julson, J., Holladay, J., Ruan, R. 2011. Microwave
pyrolysis of distillers dried grain with solubles (DDGS) for biofuel production.
Bioresource Technology, 102(10), 6208-6213.
50. Levine, R.B., Sierra, C.O.S., Hockstad, R., Obeid, W., Hatcher, P.G., Savage, P.E. 2013.
The use of hydrothermal carbonization to recycle nutrients in algal biofuel production.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 32(4), 962-975.
51. Libra, J.A., Ro, K.S., Kammann, C., Funke, A., Berge, N.D., Neubauer, Y., Titirici, M.-
M., Fühner, C., Bens, O., Kern, J. 2011. Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass
residuals: a comparative review of the chemistry, processes and applications of wet and
dry pyrolysis. Biofuels, 2(1), 71-106.
52. Lu, Y., Levine, R.B., Savage, P.E. 2014. Fatty acids for nutraceuticals and biofuels from
hydrothermal carbonization of microalgae. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 54(16), 4066-4071.
25
53. Maddi, B., Viamajala, S., Varanasi, S. 2011. Comparative study of pyrolysis of algal
biomass from natural lake blooms with lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol,
102(23), 11018-26.
54. Mehrabadi, A., Craggs, R., Farid, M.M. 2016. Pyrolysis of wastewater treatment high
rate algal pond (WWT HRAP) biomass. Algal Research.
55. Mohan, D., Sarswat, A., Ok, Y.S., Pittman, C.U. 2014. Organic and inorganic
contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable
adsorbent–a critical review. Bioresource technology, 160, 191-202.
56. Molina, M., Zaelke, D., Sarma, K.M., Andersen, S.O., Ramanathan, V., Kaniaru, D.
2009. Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other
regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 106(49), 20616-20621.
57. Mukome, F.N., Zhang, X., Silva, L.C., Six, J., Parikh, S.J. 2013. Use of chemical and
physical characteristics to investigate trends in biochar feedstocks. J Agric Food Chem,
61(9), 2196-204.
58. Neveux, N., Yuen, A.K., Jazrawi, C., Magnusson, M., Haynes, B.S., Masters, A.F.,
Montoya, A., Paul, N.A., Maschmeyer, T., de Nys, R. 2014. Biocrude yield and
productivity from the hydrothermal liquefaction of marine and freshwater green
macroalgae. Bioresour Technol, 155, 334-41.
59. Nhuchhen, D.R., Basu, P., Acharya, B. 2014. A comprehensive review on biomass
torrefaction. International Journal of Renewable Energy & Biofuels, 2014, 1-56.
60. Nizamuddin, S., Baloch, H.A., Griffin, G., Mubarak, N., Bhutto, A.W., Abro, R., Mazari,
S.A., Ali, B.S. 2017. An overview of effect of process parameters on hydrothermal
carbonization of biomass. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 1289-1299.
61. Norouzi, O., Jafarian, S., Safari, F., Tavasoli, A., Nejati, B. 2016. Promotion of
hydrogen-rich gas and phenolic-rich bio-oil production from green macroalgae
Cladophora glomerata via pyrolysis over its bio-char. Bioresource Technology, 219,
643-651.
62. Palanisamy, M., Mukund, S., Sivakumar, U., Karthikeyan, Sivasubramanian, V. 2017.
Bio-char production from micro algal biomass of Chlorella vulgaris. PHYKOS, 47(1),
99-104.
63. Park, S.H., Cho, H.J., Ryu, C., Park, Y.-K. 2016. Removal of copper(II) in aqueous
solution using pyrolytic biochars derived from red macroalga Porphyra tenera. Journal
of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 36, 314-319.
26
64. Rashid, N., Rehman, M.S.U., Han, J.-I. 2013. Recycling and reuse of spent microalgal
biomass for sustainable biofuels. Biochemical engineering journal, 75, 101-107.
65. Roberts, D.A., Cole, A.J., Paul, N.A., de Nys, R. 2015a. Algal biochar enhances the re-
vegetation of stockpiled mine soils with native grass. Journal of Environmental
Management, 161, 173-180.
66. Roberts, D.A., Paul, N.A., Dworjanyn, S.A., Bird, M.I., de Nys, R. 2015b. Biochar from
commercially cultivated seaweed for soil amelioration. Sci Rep, 5, 9665.
67. Ronsse, F., van Hecke, S., Dickinson, D., Prins, W. 2013. Production and
characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis
conditions. GCB Bioenergy, 5(2), 104-115.
68. Roy, P., Dias, G. 2017. Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bioenergy sector: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 59-69.
69. Sarkar, O., Agarwal, M., Naresh Kumar, A., Venkata Mohan, S. 2015. Retrofitting
hetrotrophically cultivated algae biomass as pyrolytic feedstock for biogas, bio-char and
bio-oil production encompassing biorefinery. Bioresour Technol, 178, 132-8.
70. Shukla, S., Gita, S., Bharti, V., Bhuvaneswari, G., Wikramasinghe, W. 2017.
Atmospheric Carbon Sequestration Through Microalgae: Status, Prospects, and
Challenges. in: Agro-Environmental Sustainability, Springer, pp. 219-235.
71. Shuttleworth, P., Budarin, V., Gronnow, M., Clark, J.H., Luque, R. 2012. Low
temperature microwave-assisted vs conventional pyrolysis of various biomass
feedstocks. Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry, 21(3), 270-274.
72. Smith, A.M., Ross, A.B. 2016. Production of bio-coal, bio-methane and fertilizer from
seaweed via hydrothermal carbonisation. Algal Research, 16, 1-11.
73. Sohi, S., Loez-Capel, E., Krull, E., Bol, R. 2009. Biochar’s roles in soil and climate
change: A review of research needs. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report, 5(09), 1-57.
74. Spokas, K.A., Novak, J.M., Stewart, C.E., Cantrell, K.B., Uchimiya, M., DuSaire, M.G.,
Ro, K.S. 2011. Qualitative analysis of volatile organic compounds on biochar.
Chemosphere, 85(5), 869-882.
75. Suali, E., Sarbatly, R. 2012. Conversion of microalgae to biofuel. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 4316-4342.
76. Suganya, T., Varman, M., Masjuki, H., Renganathan, S. 2016. Macroalgae and
microalgae as a potential source for commercial applications along with biofuels
production: A biorefinery approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55,
909-941.
27
77. Sun, H., Lu, H., Chu, L., Shao, H., Shi, W. 2017. Biochar applied with appropriate rates
can reduce N leaching, keep N retention and not increase NH3 volatilization in a coastal
saline soil. Science of The Total Environment, 575, 820-825.
78. Sun, Y., Gao, B., Yao, Y., Fang, J., Zhang, M., Zhou, Y., Chen, H., Yang, L. 2014.
Effects of feedstock type, production method, and pyrolysis temperature on biochar and
hydrochar properties. Chemical Engineering Journal, 240, 574-578.
79. Tag, A.T., Duman, G., Ucar, S., Yanik, J. 2016. Effects of feedstock type and pyrolysis
temperature on potential applications of biochar. Journal of Analytical and Applied
Pyrolysis, 120, 200-206.
80. Tekin, K., Karagöz, S., Bektaş, S. 2014. A review of hydrothermal biomass processing.
Renewable and sustainable Energy reviews, 40, 673-687.
81. Titirici, M.-M., White, R.J., Falco, C., Sevilla, M. 2012. Black perspectives for a green
future: hydrothermal carbons for environment protection and energy storage. Energy &
Environmental Science, 5(5), 6796-6822.
82. Torri, C., Samorì, C., Adamiano, A., Fabbri, D., Faraloni, C., Torzillo, G. 2011.
Preliminary investigation on the production of fuels and bio-char from Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii biomass residue after bio-hydrogen production. Bioresource Technology,
102(18), 8707-8713.
83. Tripathi, M., Sahu, J.N., Ganesan, P. 2016. Effect of process parameters on production
of biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: A review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 55, 467-481.
84. Uemura, Y., Matsumoto, R., Saadon, S., Matsumura, Y. 2015. A study on torrefaction of
Laminaria japonica. Fuel Processing Technology, 138, 133-138.
85. Vassilev, S.V., Vassileva, C.G. 2016. Composition, properties and challenges of algae
biomass for biofuel application: An overview. Fuel, 181, 1-33.
86. Wan, Y., Chen, P., Zhang, B., Yang, C., Liu, Y., Lin, X., Ruan, R. 2009. Microwave-
assisted pyrolysis of biomass: Catalysts to improve product selectivity. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 86(1), 161-167.
87. Wang, K., Brown, R.C., Homsy, S., Martinez, L., Sidhu, S.S. 2013. Fast pyrolysis of
microalgae remnants in a fluidized bed reactor for bio-oil and biochar production.
Bioresource Technology, 127, 494-499.
88. Wang, N., Tahmasebi, A., Yu, J., Xu, J., Huang, F., Mamaeva, A. 2015. A Comparative
study of microwave-induced pyrolysis of lignocellulosic and algal biomass. Bioresource
Technology, 190, 89-96.
28
89. Wiedner, K., Rumpel, C., Steiner, C., Pozzi, A., Maas, R., Glaser, B. 2013. Chemical
evaluation of chars produced by thermochemical conversion (gasification, pyrolysis and
hydrothermal carbonization) of agro-industrial biomass on a commercial scale. Biomass
and Bioenergy, 59, 264-278.
90. Wu, K.-T., Tsai, C.-J., Chen, C.-S., Chen, H.-W. 2012. The characteristics of torrefied
microalgae. Applied energy, 100, 52-57.
91. Xiao, L.-P., Shi, Z.-J., Xu, F., Sun, R.-C. 2012. Hydrothermal carbonization of
lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 118, 619-623.
92. Xu, Q., Qian, Q., Quek, A., Ai, N., Zeng, G., Wang, J. 2013. Hydrothermal
carbonization of macroalgae and the effects of experimental parameters on the
properties of hydrochars. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 1(9), 1092-1101.
93. Yan, W., Acharjee, T.C., Coronella, C.J., Vásquez, V.R. 2009. Thermal pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 28(3), 435-440.
94. Yanik, J., Stahl, R., Troeger, N., Sinag, A. 2013. Pyrolysis of algal biomass. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 103, 134-141.
95. Yao, C., Wu, P., Pan, Y., Lu, H., Chi, L., Meng, Y., Cao, X., Xue, S., Yang, X. 2016.
Evaluation of the integrated hydrothermal carbonization-algal cultivation process for
enhanced nitrogen utilization in Arthrospira platensis production. Bioresource
Technology, 216, 381-390.
96. Yin, C. 2012. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of biomass for liquid biofuels production.
Bioresource technology, 120, 273-284.
97. Yuan, T., Tahmasebi, A., Yu, J. 2015. Comparative study on pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
and algal biomass using a thermogravimetric and a fixed-bed reactor. Bioresource
Technology, 175, 333-341.
98. Yuan, Y., Macquarrie, D.J. 2015. Microwave assisted step-by-step process for the
production of fucoidan, alginate sodium, sugars and biochar from Ascophyllum
nodosum through a biorefinery concept. Bioresour Technol, 198, 819-27.
99. Zeraatkar, A.K., Ahmadzadeh, H., Talebi, A.F., Moheimani, N.R., McHenry, M.P. 2016.
Potential use of algae for heavy metal bioremediation, a critical review. Journal of
environmental management, 181, 817-831.
100. Zheng, H., Guo, W., Li, S., Chen, Y., Wu, Q., Feng, X., Yin, R., Ho, S.-H., Ren, N.,
Chang, J.-S. 2017. Adsorption of p-nitrophenols (PNP) on microalgal biochar: Analysis
of high adsorption capacity and mechanism. Bioresource Technology.
29
Table 1. The pyrolysis processes used for algal biochar production
31
Fluidized- Defatted 500 31% of biochar yield (Wang et al.,
bed fast Chlorella Energy recovery of 2013)
pyrolysis vulgaris algal biomass in bio-oil
and biochar is 94%
High inorganic biochar
content
32
Table 2. Comparison of the characteristics of dry and wet torrefaction (Yan et al., 2009)
Torrefaction
Characteristics
Dry Wet (Hydrothermal)
Temperature 200-300 ℃ 180-260 ℃
Media Inert nitrogen gas Hot compressed water
Pressure Atmospheric pressure 200-700 psi
Residence time 80 min 5 min
Cooling process Flowing nitrogen; indirect water Immerse into ice bath rapidly
cooling
Additional processes - Filtration and evaporation
Energy density Lower Higher
33
Table 3. Algal hydrochar production using hydrothermal carbonization (HTC)
Macroalgae
(Xu et al.,
Sargassum horneri 180-210 2-16 hours 32.7-52.3
2013)
(Smith &
Laminaria digitata 200-250 1 hour 18.4-21.8
Ross, 2016)
(Smith &
Laminaria hyperborean 200-250 1 hour 23.6-39.0
Ross, 2016)
(Smith &
Alaria esculenta 200-250 1 hour 23.7-30.0
Ross, 2016)
Table 4. Physical properties of biochars derived from microalgal and macroalgal biomass
Microalgae
34
(2011)
Nannochloropsis sp. 400, 500, and 24.8- 14.8 n.d. Aysu and
600 °C, 60 min 33.5 Sanna (2015)
Spirogyra sp. 550 °C, 60 min 28.0 23.0 n.d. Chaiwong et
al. (2012)
Tetraselmis sp. 500 °C, 1 h ~20 10.37 n.d. Aysu et al.
(2016)
Lacustrine alga 400, 500 and 41.3- n.d. n.d. Chiodo et al.
600 °C, 45 min 48.3 (2016)
Mixed consortia 500, 600, and 33.0- n.d. n.d. Sarkar et al.
800 °C, 1, 2, and 63.0 (2015)
3h
Macroalgae
35
Ulva ohnoi Hydrothermal 12.1 4.0 n.d. Neveux et al.
liquefaction (2014)
Undaria sp. 450 °C, 60 min 60.3- 10.7- 1.3-8.9 Roberts et al.
62.4 14.7 (2015b)
Mixture of 250-400 °C 74.5 n.d. n.d. Bird et al.
Cladophora (2012)
coelothrix,
Chaetomorpha indica,
Ulva flexuosa
Kelp n.a. n.d. n.d. 26.6 Boakye et al.
(2016)
Spray-dried algae 300, 450, 600, 19.3- 8.2-9.2 14-19 Ronsse et al.
and 750 °C, 10 72.8 (2013)
and 60 min
n.a., not available; n.d., not determined.
36
Table 5. Chemical properties of biochars derived from microalgal and macroalgal biomass
Microalgae
Arthrospira platensis ‒ 7.6 47.8 44.6 45.3 1.2 2.6 0.1 0.3 ‒ Chaiwong et al.
(2012)
Arthrospira platensis ‒ ‒ 47.8 ‒ 45.3 1.2 2.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ Chaiwong et al.
(2013)
Arthrospira platensis ‒ 28.0 29.5 42.0 51.0 2.5 7.7 ‒ 18.0 ‒ Conti et al. (2016)
Cladophora sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 62.7 2.2 4.0 ‒ 31.0 ‒ Maddi et al.
(2011)
Chlamydomonas ‒ ‒ 45.0 ‒ 40.0 1.4 5.3 <0.1 9.3 ‒ Torri et al. (2011)
reinhardtii
Chlorella vulgaris 3.4 23.5 20.0 54.2 62.0 3.9 9.4 ‒ 4.8 ‒ Wang et al.
(2013)
Desmodesmus ‒ 22.0 36.8 41.0 51.0 3.0 7.0 0.1 14.0 ‒ Conti et al. (2016)
communis
Isochrysis sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 43.5 1.5 3.7 ‒ 51.3 ‒ Aysu et al. (2016)
Lyngbya sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 68.8 2.5 6.7 ‒ 21.9 ‒ Maddi et al.
(2011)
Nannochloropsis sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 55.3 2.0 5.2 ‒ 37.5 ‒ Aysu and Sanna
(2015)
Spirogyra sp. ‒ 16.8 23.5 59.7 62.4 0.4 2.1 0.5 4.1 ‒ Chaiwong et al.
37
(2012)
Tetraselmis sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 48.1 1.7 4.3 ‒ 46.0 ‒ Aysu et al. (2016)
Lacustrine algae ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 27.0- 0.8- 0.7- ‒ 67.1- 10.05 Chiodo et al.
30.5 1.1 1.3 71.5 (2016)
Macroalgae
38
Eucheuma sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 23.7- 1.2- 0.7- 7.0- 20.6- 8.2-8.6 Roberts et al.
25.6 1.8 0.8 9.3 24.9 (2015b)
Gracilaria sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 24.5- 1.5- 1.3- 2.7- 16.5- 7.6-8.1 Roberts et al.
30.9 2.2 2.8 4.4 19.8 (2015b)
Gracilaria gracilis 4.1 ‒ 47.4 ‒ 36.8 0.2 2.3 2.6 10.6 ‒ Francavilla et al.
(2015)
Gracilaria gracilis 5.4 ‒ 30.7 ‒ 41.2 2.2 2.3 1.3 22.3 ‒ Francavilla et al.
residue (2015)
Kappaphycus sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 22.2- 1.1- 0.3- 5.5- 15.6- 8.8-9.0 Roberts et al.
31.3 2.1 0.7 6.8 23.8 (2015b)
Oedogonium sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 12.2 1.4 1.2 0 6.6 ‒ Neveux et al.
(2014)
Porphyra tenera 5.5 ‒ 21.3 73.2 74.7 3.0 9.1 4.2 9.0 ‒ Park et al. (2016)
Saccharina sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 28.0- 1.9- 2.2- 1.0- 16.4- 11.0- Roberts et al.
35.0 2.4 2.4 1.6 18.4 11.2 (2015b)
Sargassum sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 28.9- 2.0- 1.0- 0.9- 15.3- 10.1- Roberts et al.
29.1 2.1 1.1 2.8 18.2 10.8 (2015b)
Ulva flexuousa ‒ ‒ 26.5- ‒ 22.3- 1.1- 4.0- ‒ ‒ 8.0- Bird et al. (2011)
42.6 30.9 3.2 7.7 10.1
Ulva ohnoi ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 9.6 2.3 0.9 16.3 35.1 ‒ Neveux et al.
(2014)
Undaria sp. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 27.3- 1.7- 2.3- 0.6- 14.1- 9.9- Roberts et al.
34.8 2.8 2.4 0.8 15.6 10.9 (2015b)
Mixture ‒ 11.6-54.2 22.9- 22.9-45.7 36.6- 1.4- 1.4- 0-0.8 9.3- 8.7- Tag et al. (2016)
42.7 45.3 3.7 2.1 34.7 13.7
Kelp ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 27.4 0.6 1.28 ‒ 12.1 ‒ Boakye et al.
(2016)
Spray-dried algae ‒ 3.9-70.0 46.3- 30.0-96.1 62.7- 1.4- ‒ ‒ ‒ 4.9- Ronsse et al.
76.4 90.6 7.2 12.5 (2013)
‒: not determined
39
Figure 1. Algal biomass production for renewable energy production and carbon
sequestration
40
Figure 2. General torrefaction process for algal biochar production
41
Highlights
Conventional and newly developed methods for algal biochar synthesis are discussed
42
Graphical abstract
43