Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Oct 29;3(1):100056.
doi: 10.1016/j.engmic.2022.100056. eCollection 2023 Mar.

Challenges and opportunities for third-generation ethanol production: A critical review

Caroline Müller  1 , Thamarys Scapini  2 , Alan Rempel  3 , Ederson Rossi Abaide  4 , Aline Frumi Camargo  2 , Mateus Torres Nazari  3 , Viviani Tadioto  1 , Charline Bonatto  2 , Marcus Vinícius Tres  5 , Giovani Leone Zabot  5 , Luciane Maria Colla  3 , Helen Treichel  2 , Sérgio Luiz Alves Jr  1
Affiliations
Review

Challenges and opportunities for third-generation ethanol production: A critical review

Caroline Müller et al. Eng Microbiol. .

Abstract

In recent decades, third-generation (3G) biofuels have become a more attractive method of fuel production, as algae cultivation does not infringe on resources needed for food production. Additionally, algae can adapt to different environments, has high photosynthetic efficiency (CO2 fixation), and has a high potential for carbohydrate accumulation. The prevalence of algae worldwide demonstrates its ability to adapt to different environments and climates, proving its biodiversity and versatility. Algae can be grown in wastewater, seawater, and even sewage, thus ensuring a lower water footprint and greater energy efficiency during algal biomass production. Because of this, the optimization of 3G ethanol production appears to be an excellent alternative to mitigate environmental impacts and increase energy and food security. This critical review presents (i) the stages of cultivation and processing of micro and macroalgae; (ii) the selection of yeasts (through engineering and/or bioprospecting) to produce ethanol from these biomasses; (iii) the potential of seawater-based facilities to reduce water footprint; and (iv) the mass and energy balances of 3G ethanol production in the world energy matrix. This article is, above all, a brainstorm on the environmental viability of algae bioethanol.

Keywords: Algae ethanol; Biomass; Energy balance; Seawater; Water footprint; Yeasts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Image, graphical abstract
Graphical abstract
Fig 1
Fig. 1
Schematic diagram of the bioethanol production from algae biomass.
Fig 2
Fig. 2
Theoretical process flow diagram for microalgae bioethanol production. Mj = global mass flow (kg/h); Tj = Temperature (°C); mi,j = mass flow for each component i (kg/h); i is the subscript referring to the component: water (1), nutrients (2), microalgae (3), acid (4), fermentable sugars (5), basic solution (6), yeast (7), bioethanol (8), neutral salt (9); j is the subscript referring to the stream (1-18); EP101: equipment 1 in sector 100. The meaning of each stream and the code for piece of each equipment are shown in Table 4.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Vandenberghe L.P.S., Valladares-Diestra K.K., Bittencourt G.A., Zevallos Torres L.A., Vieira S., Karp S.G., Sydney E.B., de Carvalho J.C., Thomaz Soccol V., Soccol C.R. Beyond sugar and ethanol: the future of sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022;167 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112721. - DOI
    1. Thanigaivel S., Priya A.K., Dutta K., Rajendran S., Vasseghian Y. Engineering strategies and opportunities of next generation biofuel from microalgae: a perspective review on the potential bioenergy feedstock. Fuel. 2022;312 doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122827. - DOI
    1. Alves Jr S.L., Scapini T., Warken A., Klanovicz N., Procópio D.P., Tadioto V., Stambuk B.U., Basso T.O., Treichel H. In: Yeasts: from Nature to Bioprocesses. Alves S. Jr., Treichel H., Basso T., Stambuk BU., editors. Bentham Science; 2022. Engineered saccharomyces or prospected non-saccharomyces: is there only one good choice for biorefineries? pp. 243–283. - DOI
    1. Jansen M.L.A.A., Bracher J.M., Papapetridis I., Verhoeven M.D., de Bruijn H., de Waal P.P., van Maris A.J.A.A., Klaassen P., Pronk J.T. Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for second-generation ethanol production: from academic exploration to industrial implementation. FEMS Yeast Res. 2017;17:44. doi: 10.1093/femsyr/fox044. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hassan S.S., Williams G.A., Jaiswal A.K. Moving towards the second generation of lignocellulosic biorefineries in the EU: drivers, challenges, and opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019;101:590–599. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.041. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources