Enabling European Smes To Remediate Wastes, Reduce GHG Emissions and Produce Biofuels Via Microalgae Cultivation

BioAlgaeSorb Call FP7-SME-2008-2
Enabling European SMEs to

Remediate wastes, Reduce GHG Emissions and Produce Biofuels via
Microalgae Cultivation
Tạo điều kiện cho doanh nghiệp nhỏ đến chất thải châu Âu khắc phục, giảm phát thải khí nhà kính và Sản xuất nhiên
liệu sinh học thông qua vi tảo trồng trọt
BioAlgaeSorb
Table 1.1: Application Identifier

Enabling European SMEs to Remediate wastes, Reduce GHG Emissions and Produce
Application Title
Biofuels via Microalgae Cultivation
Application Acronym BioAlgaeSorb
Coordinating Person Arnold Kyrre Martinsen
Funding Organization European Commissions Seventh Research Framework Programme
Call Title Research for SME Associations Call 2
Call Identifier FP7-SME-2008-2
Funding Scheme Research for the benefit of specific groups (in particular SMEs)
Application stage Stage 2 Application
Table 1.2: List of Participants

Participant No. Participant Legal Name Country Organisation Type
1 (Coordinator) Norwegian Bioenergy Association (NoBio) Norway AC SME AG
2 European Biomass Association (AEBIOM) European European SME AG
3 British Trout Association Ltd (BTA) United Kingdom MS SME AG
4 Sea Marconi Technologies s.a.s (Sea Marconi) Italy SMEP
5 IngrePro BV (Ingrepro) Netherlands SMEP
6 Varicon Aqua Solutions Ltd (VAS) United Kingdom SMEP
7 Value for Technology BVBA (VFT) Belgium SMEP
8 Swansea University (SU) United Kingdom RTD
9 Teknologisk Institutt AS (TI) Norway RTD
10 Durham University (UDUR) United Kingdom RTD
11 Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR) Greece RTD
12 University of Florence (UFL) Italy RTD
1
Contents
B1.1: SOUND CONCEPT AND QUALITY OF OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................4
B1.1.1: Overview and Aims ........................................................................................................................................................................4
B1.1.2: The Need for Capture and Remediation of Greenhouse Gases and Liquid Effluents ...................................................................5
B1.1.3: The Scale of GHG and Liquid Waste Emissions ...........................................................................................................................6
B1.1.4: The Role of Microalgal Biotechnology in Effluent Mitigation and Valorisation ...............................................................................8
B1.1.5: Markets of Microalgae Products ............................................................................................................................... .....................9
B1.1.6: Relevance and Improving Competitiveness of SME-AGs ...........................................................................................................11
B1.2: INNOVATIVE CHARACTER IN RELATION TO STATE OF THE ART ...................................................................................................................12
B1.2.1: Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... .......................12
B1.2.2: Effluent Remediation - Current State of the Art ...........................................................................................................................12
B1.2.3: Microalgae Production Technologies...........................................................................................................................................15
B1.2.4: Microalgal Cell Harvesting ............................................................................................................................... ............................17
B1.2.5: Microalgae Upgrading..................................................................................................................................................................18
B1.3: CONTRIBUTION TO ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE / TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS ....................................................................................21
B1.4: QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF S/T METHODOLOGY AND ASSOCIATED WORK PLAN ...............................................................................22
B1.4.1: Overall Strategy of the Work Plan ...............................................................................................................................................22
B1.4.2: Timing of Work Packages and their Components .......................................................................................................................23
B1.4.3: Work Package Descriptions............................................................................................................................... ..........................26
B1.4.4: Graphical Presentation of Work Packages ..................................................................................................................................41
SECTION B2: IMPLEMENTATION – QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND THE MANAGEMENT ....................42
B2.1: QUALITY OF THE CONSORTIUM AS A WHOLE ............................................................................................................................................42
B2.1.1: Management structure and procedures .......................................................................................................................................42
B2.1.2: Description of the Consortium ............................................................................................................................... ......................46
B2.2: RESOURCES TO BE COMMITTED ..............................................................................................................................................................53
SECTION B3: IMPACT – THE POTENTIAL IMPACT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, DISSEMINATION AND USE OF PROJECT
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................57
B3.1: CONTRIBUTION, AT THE EUROPEAN AND/OR INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, TO THE EXPECTED IMPACTS LISTED IN THE WORK PROGRAMME
UNDER THE RELEVANT
ACTIVITY............................................................................................................................................................... ...................57
B3.1.1: Improving the Competitiveness of SME-AG Members ................................................................................................................57
B3.1.2: Markets for BioAlgaeSorb Technologies .....................................................................................................................................58
B3.1.3: Economic Justification .................................................................................................................................................................63
B3.1.4: Societal Aspects and Regulatory Drivers ....................................................................................................................................65
B3.1.5: Time to market .............................................................................................................................................................................67
B3.2: APPROPRIATENESS OF MEASURES ENVISAGED FOR THE DISSEMINATION AND/OR EXPLOITATION OF PROJECT RESULTS, AND
MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
...........................................................................................................................................................................67
B3.2.1: Project Results and Intellectual Property Rights..........................................................................................................................67
B.3.2.2 Dissemination and Use ................................................................................................................................................................71
SECTION B4: ETHICAL ISSUES .....................................................................................................................................................................73
SECTION B5: CONSIDERATION OF GENDER ASPECTS.............................................................................................................................74
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................75
2
Tables
TABLE 1.1: APPLICATION IDENTIFIER ............................................................................................................................... ............................1
TABLE 1.2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................... ................................1
TABLE 1.3: RISK DESCRIPTION FOR THE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................23
TABLE 1.4: TIMING OF WORK PACKAGES AND THEIR COMPONENTS ...................................................................................................24
TABLE 1.3A: WORK PACKAGE LIST ............................................................................................................................... ..............................26
TABLE 1.3B: DELIVERABLES LIST................................................................................................................................................................26
TABLE 1.3C: WORK PACKAGE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................27
TABLE 1.3D: SUMMARY OF STAFF EFFORT................................................................................................................................................39
TABLE 1.3E: LIST OF MILESTONES ..............................................................................................................................................................40
TABLE 2.2: INDICATIVE BREAKDOWN OF THE OFFER FROM THE RTD PERFORMERS TO THE SME PARTICIPANTS.....................54
TABLE 2.3: BIOALGAECONSUMABLE COSTS PER PARTNER ..................................................................................................................55
TABLE 2.4: BUDGET ALLOCATION TABLE ............................................................................................................................... ...................56
TABLE 4.1: ETHICAL ISSUES TABLE ............................................................................................................................... .............................73
3
B1.1: Sound Concept and Quality of Objectives

B1.1.1: Overview and Aims
This project addresses specific needs of several key European SME groupings, via integration of technologies for effluent water
remediation and the production and exploitation of microalgae biomass for mitigation of climate change (renewable energy
generation, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture, utilisation of organic wastes) and the production of valuable bio-products using a
biorefinery approach. The BioAlgaeSorb concept is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.1 below:
Figure 1.1
Microalgae are very small (microscopic) photosynthetic, single-celled organisms that play a key role in nature as a food source
for higher animals (eg, zooplankton, fish), for transferring nutrients in aquatic food webs and for balancing the exchange of CO2
between the ocean and the atmosphere. They are a highly diverse group, ranging in size from several hundredths of a mm to
several tenths of a mm, taking many different shapes and existing singly or in chains or groups. Microalgae occupy a very wide
range of habitats, including forms that live in open water (phytoplankton) or on surfaces (benthic), and are adapted to extreme
physical and chemical conditions (eg, extremes of temperature, salinity, pH). Well known natural phenomena involving these
orgnaims include blooms of green algae in freshwater ponds or lakes during summer and ―red tides‖ in the sea. Vi tảo
rất nhỏ (vi) quang hợp, sinh vật đơn bào có vai trò quan trọng trong tự nhiên như một nguồn thức ăn cho động vật
bậc cao (ví dụ, động vật phù du, cá), để chuyển các chất dinh dưỡng trong lưới thức ăn thuỷ sản và để cân bằng sự
trao đổi CO2 giữa đại dương và khí quyển. Họ là một nhóm rất đa dạng, khác nhau về kích thước từ vài trăm của một
vài mm đến phần mười của một mm, mang nhiều hình dạng khác nhau và hiện đơn lẻ hoặc trong dây chuyền hoặc
các nhóm. Vi tảo chiếm một phạm vi rất rộng của môi trường sống, bao gồm các hình thức sống trong nước mở (thực
vật phù du) hoặc trên các bề mặt (đáy), và đang thích nghi với điều kiện khắc nghiệt vật lý và hóa học (ví dụ, thái cực
nhiệt độ, độ mặn, độ pH). Cũng được biết đến hiện tượng thiên nhiên liên quan đến các orgnaims bao gồm hoa của
tảo xanh trong ao nước ngọt, hồ trong mùa hè và thủy triều đỏ ‖ trong biển.
Important features of interest for the commercial exploitation of microalgae include their rapid rate of cell division (very high
growth rate compared to terrestrial plants), their ability to grow using just light and a simple nutrient mix (like plants), and their
synthesis of a wide range of useful and valuable compounds (including oils, pigments and antioxidants). These attributes have
encouraged the development of commercial techniques for microalgae mass cultivation and downstream processes for the
extraction of value-added products, which will be extended and directed towards effluent remediation for European SME-AG
members within the BioAlgaeSorb project. tính năng quan trọng của lãi suất cho việc khai thác thương mại của các vi tảo
có tốc độ nhanh chóng của họ phân chia tế bào (tốc độ tăng trưởng rất cao so với thực vật trên cạn), khả năng của
họ để phát triển chỉ sử dụng ánh sáng và một hỗn hợp chất dinh dưỡng đơn giản (như thực vật), và tổng hợp của họ
về một nhiều loại hợp chất hữu ích và có giá trị (bao gồm cả loại dầu, bột màu, và chất chống oxy hóa). Những thuộc
tính này đã khuyến khích sự phát triển của kỹ thuật canh tác thương mại hàng loạt vi tảo và các quy trình hạ lưu để
tách các sản phẩm giá trị gia tăng, sẽ được mở rộng và chỉ đạo khắc phục hậu quả đối với nước thải cho các thành
viên châu Âu SME-AG trong dự án BioAlgaeSorb.
The overall aims of the project are to:

Increase knowledge on the bioconversion of industrial and agricultural/aquacultural effluents to microalgae biomass, as a
sustainable raw material for biofuels and other value added applications;
Provide new carbon neutral fuel sources for biomass power plants and biodiesel manufacture;
Provide new sources of sustainable and carbon neutral high quality fine chemicals extracted from microalgae biomass;
4
Reduce the discharge of CO2 to the atmosphere from biomass and fossil fuel power plants and other industrial processes
reliant on combustion of fossil fuels;
Reduce the nutrient loading of effluent waters from livestock production systems which are responsible for the largest
proportion of organic waste in Europe, including most ammonia emissions.
Increase know how and competence within a range of European SME-dominated industries.
The specific Scientific and Technological Objectives of the project are to:
Optimise parameters for the rapid growth of (especially carbon-rich) microalgae, using waste-water nutrients and/or CO2-
rich industrial flue gases, to high densities and in scalable cultivation systems;
Develop efficient and reliable microalgae harvesting and dewatering processes;
Develop effective processes for the conversion of dewatered microalgal biomass into biofuels and/or directly into energy;
Optimise physical and chemical fractionation and transformation methods for those biomass components not directly
converted to biofuels or energy;
Assess the viability of the new processes and products developed, incorporating coupled process and financial models;
Develop an industry-based model to assess a variety of strategies that maximise the value of the microalgal biomass in a
changing market environment.
B1.1.2: The Need for Capture and Remediation of Greenhouse Gases and Liquid Effluents
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

For the past two decades, reduction of GHGs has been high on the political agendas for the European Union, individual
Member States and worldwide organisations such as the United Nations. Recognizing that anthropogenic activities contribute
significantly to climate change, the EU has adopted ambitious targets for reducing GHG emissions in the coming decades. This
has led to current and emerging GHG mitigation agreements and incentives such as: The Kyoto Protocol, The EU2020, ref
Directive 2003/87/EC, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading and national agreements such as the UK Carbon Reduction
Commitment. The current target of 20% reduction in EU GHG emissions by 2020 will not be achieved without significant
reduction of CO2 emissions from power production, where the use of fossil fuels, primarily coal and gas, leads to approximately
40% of all CO2 emissions EU-wide, and totalled almost 5,000 million metric tonnes in 2005 (Europa report; International energy
annual, 2006). These decreases are expected to be attained by reducing the carbon footprint of existing fossil fuel-based power
generation and by developing alternatives to fossil fuels. Geological carbon capture and storage (CCS) from fossil fuel-based
power plants is a current focus for technology development in the EU (e.g., proposed EC Directive on Geological Storage of
CO2) and globally, however geological CCS will not be adaptable to all scales of operation or localities (e.g. where seismic
events and other geological failures may cause broken pipes): additional technologies are needed to reduce GHG emissions
from fossil fuel-based power plants. The BioAlgaeSorb project will benefit SMEs and other enterprises by developing
technologies for biological carbon capture using microalgae.
Biofuels Production
The EC is committed to a target of 20% energy production from renewable sources by 2020. As part of this scheme, biofuels
are to comprise 10% of European transport fuels by 2020, however biofuels have recently been the subject of much criticism
within the EU and globally, for diverting human food supplies and arable land to fuel production (euobserver.com).
Photosynthetic microalgae can be cultured to produce biofuels that do not directly compete with food crop-based commodities,
as they are not typically grown in arable land areas, nor is microalgae biomass a major food source for humans (although it is a
high quality food supplement). Furthermore, microalgae naturally tend to produce a lipid fraction suitable for the manufacture of
second generation transport biofuels that are compatible with current transport infrastructure and do not require vehicle
modification. Also, microalgae produce higher oil yields (up to 50 % of algal body weight) than oil-palm trees (up to 20 % body
weight) which are currently the largest producer of oil to make biofuels (Research and Markets). It is therefore very timely to
develop technologies for microalgae mass cultivation in Europe as a source of environmentally sustainable, carbon neutral
biofuels.
Waste Water Treatment

In parallel to measures to decrease European GHG emissions, the discharge of aqueous effluents is increasingly regulated
across diverse business sectors within the EU. Eutrophication is caused by several industrial activities (Tusseau-Vuillemin
(2001) and it has long been suggested that water pollution should become an international priority (Duda, 1993). There are
some 20 EU Directives encompassing all aspects of water quality, including those affecting water abstraction and effluent
discharge from agriculture and land-based aquaculture, municipal waste water treatment and food and drink production. Key
5
legislation affecting businesses that produce soluble organic wastes include the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/E), the
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/272/EEC, amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC); The Nitrates Directive
(91/676/EEC) and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (2008/1/EC). These regulations are driving both
better conservation of water (e.g. water re-use and recycling in land-based aquaculture systems) and upgrading of effluent
treatment infrastructures, all of which have significant cost implications for SMEs and large enterprises in Europe. As an
example, the EU Court of Auditors estimate the Europe-wide cost of constructing new sewer pipelines and secondary treatment
plants in compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive to be about € 200 billion (The information centre,
Scottish Parliament 1999). There is clearly a need to develop innovative, cost effective approaches to the treatment of effluents,
preferably incorporating valorisation of wastes. Critically, as the global cost of fertilizers increases (N is fixed by the Haber
process at great energetic cost, while natural P reserves are fast being exhausted) it will become all the more important to
recover and reuse these nutrients rather than to deal with them as wastes. The EC Water Framework Directive and related
legislation place great pressures upon the removal of this valuable resource; it is logical to combined the removal of nutrients
with the production of biofuels. The BioAlgaeSorb project will provide EU SME groups in the livestock production sectors with
new technologies implementing microalgae for effluent treatment – phycoremediation – yielding a valuable by- product in the
form of microalgae biomass.
B1.1.3: The Scale of GHG and Liquid Waste Emissions
Power Generation (Fossil Fuels and Biomass)

Based on average world data, fossil fuels currently supply over 85% of the world‘s energy needs and will remain
in abundant supply well into the 21st century (International Energy Agency, 2001). Simultaneously, Biomass energy
production is the fastest growing renewable energy resource in Europe (European Biomass Association, 2007), and in 2004
had contributed up to 66% of the total renewable energy. The carbon dioxide emissions from the exhaust gases of the
biomass/fossil fuel-fired power plants are one of the major emitters of GHG, accounting for about a third of global CO2
emissions, and have been increasing in recent decades (Andrade and Zaparoni – Survey, 2009). Data for 2004 show that
within the EU 27 member community, a total of 5142 Mt of CO2 was emitted of which about 1700Mt came from power plants
emissions (EEA, 2009) This elevation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations in the Earth‘s atmosphere
is leading to changes in the global climatic conditions caused by the rise in the terrestrial surface average temperature.
Therefore there is need for stabilization of GHG: However, this will be difficult to achieve if coal-fired plants remain, unless
carbon capture and storage emissions from coal fired stations becomes viable.
Heavy Industry
Nearly a third of the world‘s energy consumption and 36% of CO2 emissions are attributable to manufacturing
industries. The large primary materials industries, i.e., chemical, petrochemicals, iron and steel, cement, paper and pulp, and
other minerals and metals, account for more than two-thirds of this amount. The industry‘s use of energy has grown by
61% between 1971-
2004, although if the industry adopted advanced technologies, there would be a significant reduction in CO2 emissions (Global
Warming Report, 2004).
The cost of CO2 mitigation is expected to rise. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme covers CO2 emissions from the power sector
(all fossil fuel generators over 20MW). Member States are required to develop a National Allocation Plan, setting targets for
emissions from the relevant sectors and allocating allowances to installations for the relevant periods. All installations
(representing about 40% of EU emissions) are thus set an absolute emission cap (6,600 Mt CO2in Phase I of the scheme).
Allowances are freely tradable – installations may buy or sell allowances as they see fit. Phase II of the EU ETS began in 2008
and imposes tighter restrictions, as well as auctioning the allowances instead of distributing them freely. The UK Carbon
Reduction Commitment is a mandatory emissions trading scheme targeting large commercial and public sector organisations
using more than 6,000MWh of electricity through mandatory half hourly meters. Organisations will have to buy allowances for
emissions at an auction, with the total number of allowances set by the Government. Revenue from the auction will be recycled
to scheme participants. The scheme is expected to begin in 2010.
Aquaculture
The cultivation of finfish and shellfish is a substantial and expanding European industry. Following current and anticipated
trends, sectoral growth is expected to enlarge markedly over the coming decades, as global population and the demand for
seafood increases whilst harvest from wild stocks stabilises or declines. The systems used for finfish production can be broken
down into three main categories: open ponds/tanks/ raceways, cages (typically marine) or closed water recirculation systems
(Table X). Throughout the EU Member States, salmonid species (e.g. trout) dominate in terms of production and number of
farms. In 2007, approximately 1600 thousand tonnes of fish were produced across Europe, of which approximately 81% (1274
thousand tonnes) were salmonids or eels (FEAP/Finfish News 2009). In the UK alone, there were over 240 individual farms
producing rainbow trout in 2007 (Finfish news, 2009). The quantity and precise constituents of aquaculture waste vary between
6
production system and species farmed, with some studies (Ackefors & Enell, 1994; Chopin et al. 1999; Olsen et al., 2008)
estimating that 44 - 78 kg N/ton of fish/year is released into the water column.
Typical production Number of Member Quantity

Fish
system States producing (metric tonnes)
Tilapia Tanks 2 1150
African Catfish Tanks 4 7061
Ponds, tanks or
Sturgeon 6 2077
raceways
Carp Ponds or tanks 8 70341
Other coarse fish Ponds or tanks 2 1241
European Eel Ponds or tanks 4 5320
Freshwater salmonids (trout and Charr Ponds or tanks 22 341564
Marine salmonids (Salmon and sea trout) Sea or loch cages 7 927140
Other marine fish Sea cages or RAS 13 224404
TOTAL 1580298
More than 400,000 T of farmed fish pa are currently produced on land in the EU, conferring significant organic loading on
receiving waters, while disposal of solid fish manures in many cases incurs a charge to operators and, in some situations (eg,
where the manures contain a high salt content), is physically unsuitable for conventional land spreading practices. Increasingly
stringent discharge regulations, driven principally by the EU Water Framework Directive, have furthermore encouraged greater
water re-use and the adoption of water recycling technologies by land-based fish farms, in order to reduce total discharge water
volumes and to enable more efficient separation of solids. These trends provide greater incentive and greater technical capacity
for aquaculture SMEs, including members of the British Trout Association, to capture and valorise soluble aquaculture effluents
via BioAlgaeSorb technologies.
There is industry wide apprehension of EU Water Framework Directive demands. To reach good ecological status by 2015,
regulators may demand reduction of water abstraction and/or an increase in the cost of licences. The quantity and quality of
water or effluent discharge, such as Phosphorus, may also be restricted with the threat that, for example, regulations governing
livestock production industries may be amalgamated with heavy industry. Today, the precise demands are unknown but are
likely to increase the cost of compliance (currently about 25 Euro/tonne trout – BTA, pers. comm.). In the UK, the Environment
Agency is responsible for enforcement of environmental legislation and offences committed under such laws and regulations.
Since 2000, there have been 1600 cases (including approximately 800 prosecutions) per year. The fine varies between 4,250 -
7,700 EURO, and in some circumstances leads to a jail term
Intensive Agriculture
Due to an increase in intensity of agriculture, ammonia concentrations have doubled in the last 50 years in Europe
(http://www.uk-pollutantdeposition.ceh.ac.uk/ammonia_network). There is an estimated 230kt ammonia-N per year produced
from agricultural sources in the UK; in common with many other European countries, this accounts for about 80% of the total
emission (Pain & Jarvis, 1999) and a substantial part of the anthropogenic emissions of methane and nitrous oxide (Duxbury,
1994, Philips & Pain, 1998), as well as being responsible for the largest part of the nutrient load put on the surface waters. Pig
slurry has up to twice the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) as cattle slurry (SEPA, 2009). To illustrate, around 160 million pigs
and 100 million cattle produce 220 and 1200 million tonnes of fresh excrement annually with a nominal concentration of 10 %
dry matter (FAO, 2000; Eurostat, 2007). This is often diluted with water and mixed with bedding: including wastes from other
animal types, terrestrial livestock farming in Europe is currently producing in excess of 2 billion tonnes of organic wastes
annually. The hygiene impact potentially can affect all aspects of food production as well as presenting a broad threat to public
health from land spreading practices (Guan & Holley, 2003).
Anaerobic Digesters
This technology processes organic waste, reducing overall volume, producing biogases suitable for fossil fuel replacement and
nutrient rich liquid wastes. In recent decades, anaerobic digestion has been a major development in waste treatment
technology across Europe. Consequently, it has captured a significant share of the market for the biological treatment of solid
waste. In 2006, the European commission reported that for biological treatment of organic waste in general a total of 6 000
installations have been identified, including 3 500 composting and 2 500 anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities (mostly small scale
on-farm units). 124 AD installation for treatment of bio-waste and/or municipal waste with a total capacity of 3.9 million tonnes,
were operational in 2006 and this number is expected to grow. While AD technology is effective in producing combustible
biogas from digested organic waste, it does release a nutrient-rich liquor as a by-product that must be dealt with appropriately
to avoid contamination of receiving waters.
7
Municipal Waste Water

Waste water from dwellings constitutes grey water (from appliances, showers and sinks) and foul toilet water (sewage). The
characteristics of both waste streams differ. Grey water contains less nitrogen and pathogens and thus has more potential
applications (Li et al., 2003). The published literature indicates that the typical volume of grey water varies from 90 to 120
L/person/day in developed countries (Morel and Diener, 2006) while that of sewage (sludge only) per European country varies
between ca. 30 – 250 million kg (Eurostat, 2009).
Food Processing
In 2006, 233,344 thousand tonnes of animal and vegetal waste and food processing waste (not including excreta) were
produced in the 27 Member States of the EU (Eurostat, 2009). Waste material from food processing contributes significantly to
environmental degradation such as eutrophication (Tusseau-Vuillemin, 2001). The composition of food waste varies but a
recent review (Digman & Kim, 2008) categorised 5 different types of food waste with biological oxygen demands between 300 -
100,000mg/L.
B1.1.4: The Role of Microalgal Biotechnology in Effluent Mitigation and Valorisation

Effluents that pose a burden of environmental loading need not be regarded as an expensive, challenging problem without
value. Using microalgae, BioAlgaeSorb will assist SME‘s to reduce the costs associated with effluent discharge
and will generate new markets for microaalgal products, enabling current operations to offset their costs of discharge and to
diversify operations.
Feasibility of Microalgae Mass Cultivation

Participants in this project include European SMEs with leading technologies for intensive microalgae cultivation in closed
photobioreactors (Varicon Aqua Solutions Ltd) and in open raceways (Ingrepro BV). Working collaboratively with experts in
water quality management, nutrient dynamics and process modelling (Swansea University & HCMR,), a range of improved
products and processes will be developed for combined waste remediation and microalgae biomass production.
Feasibility of Biofuel Production from Microalgae

The biological characteristics of microalgae are favourable as biomass for biofuel in terms of their high areal productivity and
biochemical composition (Chisti Y, 2007). They do not directly compete with food crop-based commodities and are typically
grown in non-arable land areas (Patil, V et al (2008). Microalgae typically contain a much higher percentage of extractable oil
than other oil crops– in excess of 50% compared to, e.g., 25% from rapeseed, and contain more long chain polyunsaturated
fatty acids which can be converted to biofuels by pyrolysis or catalysis (Greenwell et al., 2008?). Biomass composition will be
optimised within the BioAlgaeSorb project not only by selecting appropriate microalgae species, but also by
manipulating the physico-chemical environment in which the microalgae are grown, e.g. by depleting nitrogen and
phosphorous at key stages in the growth process to induce maximal hydrocarbon production.
Feasibility of Waste Remediation Using Microalgae

Microalgae are photosynthetic aquatic microorganisms that require inorganic nutrients and CO 2 for growth (Carvalho, et al;
,2008; Eriksen, 2008). They are therefore well suited for fixing nutrients (especially inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous, which
are a large, but often unconsidered cost in microalgae biotechnology) from effluent waters and are capable of capturing CO 2
from industrial flue gases (Doucha et al (2005) Wang et al 2008). RTD providers within the project have the resources to
characterise the compositions of gaseous and aqueous effluents from industrial and agricultural processes and to perform
experimental and dynamic modelling studies to identify the most suitable microalgae species and operating conditions for
remediating and valorising the chosen waste categories.
Feasibility of Harvesting Microalgae on Large Scale

Chemical flocculation (e.g. using aluminium sulphate) is a relatively inexpensive and efficient method for separating microalgal
cells from water and is used in municipal waste water treatment plants. The principles of large scale microalgae harvesting are
thus well established, although it is desirable to exclude residual metals that may interfere with subsequent chemical or
enzymatic conversion of biomass to valuable compounds. Among the participating SMEs, online centrifugation is successfully
used as an alternative to chemical flocculation for harvesting freshwater microalgae. However, this method is considered
inefficient at the larger scales required for algal biofuel production and is also less compatible with marine microalgae species
(due to equipment corrosion). Well established separation methods will therefore be adapted to the current purpose within
BioAlgaeSorb, involving a sequential dissolved air floatation and mechanical filtration process. Ozonation and pH manipulation
will be tested as alternatives to chemical flocculants and process optimisation will take into account the physiological status of
the microalgae during harvest.
8
Feasibility of a Microalgae-based Biorefinery

A biorefinery approach will be used to develop optimal biomass processing pathways tailored to local conditions and market
opportunity. The development of an integrated biorefinery for microalgae biomass is a central innovative feature of the
BioAlgaeSorb project, designed to maximise the numbers of usable microalgae products and economic return per unit biomass
produced. The constituent processes are each well established, but will require adaptation for the particular raw materials and
intended end uses. The elements of this biorefinery are: direct thermo-chemical conversion of intact biomass (or biomass
residue following oil extraction) to liquid biofuel, physical separation of intact biomass into major fractions (protein, lipid,
carbohydrate), upgrading of the lipid fraction into current generation biodiesel (trans-esterification) and into ―green‖
biodiesel (decarboxylation and decarbonylation of fatty acids), and extraction of specific valuable pigments
(phycobiliproteins). A new microalgal biorefinery will be developed within BioAlgaeSorb to provide a series of processing
options that can be tailored to the needs of different SME-AG sectors and individual SMEs. The biorefinery will furthermore
offer a template for the broader microalgal biotechnology sector internationally, raising the impact of the investment
beyond the immediate consortium and providing opportunities to SMEs for licencing, etc.
Feasibility of Optimising and Evaluating New Processes

The configuration and management of processes and products to be developed within BioAlgaeSorb will be optimised via
computer modelling. The approach to be taken is to start with an established mechanistic model of microalgal growth. This
model is a dynamic (not steady-state) photoacclimative description of temperature-light-multinutrient limited growth. This type of
model is essential to properly consider the cost-benefit implications of the process (for example, to properly include nutrient
consumption, self-shading of suspensions etc.). The model is not a crude thermodynamic, Monod or Droop quota model.
Rather it is founded on well-grounded physiological understanding, with feedback interactions describing nutrient transport (N,
P, Fe, Si etc; differentiating between N-sources, for example), photosynthesis and photoacclimation (with changes in light and
nutrients), respiration, and changing chemical stoichiometry (e.g. with changes in nutrient status). This modelling structure will
be employed within BioAlgaeSorb to provide a mechanistic basis for a thorough and transparent analysis for the design,
geometries and efficient operation of coupled microalgae photobioreactors and raceways at SME-AG member locations.
B1.1.5: Markets of Microalgae Products
Established Markets
Microalgal biomass production for established markets has approximately doubled recently from 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes per
year dry weight, excluding live microalgae produced and used in marine aquaculture hatcheries (Pulz and Gross, 2004; Algal
Industry Survey, 2008). Briefly, the particular markets include: Aquaculture and Agriculture feeds, Pigments, antioxidants,
Functional foods and nutraceuticals, Cosmetics and cosmeceuticals and Omega 3 oils. In 2006, these markets had an
estimated value of $5-6.5 billion per year (Pulz and Gross, 2004, Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 – summary of microalgal product markets

Current Product Group Product Retail value (millions EURO)
Biomass Health Food 1800
Functional Food 570
Feed additive 215
Soil conditioner 500
Colouring substances Astaxanthin 110
Phyocyanin 7
phycoerythrin 1.5
Antioxidants B-Carotene 200
Tocopherol N/A
Antioxidant extract 110
ARA 15
DHA 1075
PUFA extract 7
Special products Toxins 2
Isotopes 3.5
Emerging Product Group Product Retail value (millions EURO)
Biofuels and bioenergy N/A
C02 N/A
Effluent Remediation N/A
9
Around half of this production takes place in mainland China, with substantial commercial production also in Japan, Taiwan,
U.S.A., Australia and India, and smaller volumes produced elsewhere.
Aquaculture Feeds Microalgae are used ubiquitously as a feed source in the commercial hatchery production of juvenile
marine fish and shellfish. There are thousands of marine hatcheries globally, producing billions of juvenile fish and shellfish
annually. A relatively small number (~6-10) of easy-to-rear microalgae species have been adopted for this purpose. In most
cases, the microalgae are cultured on site by hatchery personnel and presented live to the fish / shellfish larvae (see Fig x).
Under this scenario, sales opportunities to hatcheries mainly consist of the equipment and consumables required for microalgae
production: photobioreactors, pumps, lights, nutrient mixes, etc. However, there is a growing trend for hatcheries to purchase
proprietary microalgae concentrates in order to simplify on-site operations. These concentrates are supplied by companies
specialising in the large scale production and processing of microalgae. This market segment had an estimated value of EURO
500 million globally in 2004 (see Table 1) and has grown steadily since. There is further scope to develop the sector by
introducing better quality products, since it is widely acknowledged that existing concentrated products still do not match live
microalgae for hatchery applications (nutritional composition; physical attributes; product stability). Dried microalgae biomass
(esp Arthrospira) is also widely used as an ingredient in formulated feeds for aquaculture species and terrestrial animals
(farmed livestock, poultry, pets), where it has been demonstrated to have health promoting effects.
Pigments & Antioxidants Microalgae produce a range of valuable compounds including carbohydrates, proteins, essential
amino acids, pigments and vitamins, as well as bioactive molecules. The major pigments include chlorophyll a, b and c, β-
carotene, phycocyanin, xanthophylls (astaxanthin, canthaxanthin, lutein) and phycoerythrin. These pigments have existing
applications in food, feeds, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and there is an increasing demand for their use as natural colours
in textiles and as printing dyes. The value of these pigments lies not only in their colorant properties, but also as antioxidants
with demonstrated health benefits.
The worldwide market value for all commercially-used carotenoids was estimated at EURO 640 million in 2004 and is expected
to rise at an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 2.9% to just over EURO 730 million by the end of the decade. Although the
synthetic forms of carotenoid are less expensive than their natural counterparts, microalgal carotenoids have the advantage of
supplying natural isomers in their natural ratio and are generally accepted as being superior to synthetic all-trans forms. The
largest commercial outlet of carotenoids (synthetic and natural) is in feeds, mainly because of the outstanding importance of
astaxanthin and canthaxanthin, eg for colouring the flesh of farmed salmon. Increasing demand for organically farmed fish has
expanded the market for microalgae-derived astazanthin. The big carotenoid marketing success in recent years has been
lutein, when it was demonstrated that it can help reduce age-related macular degeneration. This pushed lutein‘s market
value up to EURO 100 million in 2004.
Functional Foods & Nutraceuticals The documented bioactive properties of microalgae have led to a well developed market for
dried biomass as a human nutritional supplement, sold in different forms such as capsules, tablets and liquids. The most
important microalgae species for this purpose are Dunaliella salina, Arthrospira sp, Chlorella sp and Aphanizomenon flos-
aquae. These are mainly produced in outdoor ponds or shallow raceways, but also in closed photobioreactors at more northerly
latitudes including Europe. Certain cyanobacteria, for example Arthrospira platensis and A. maxina (formerly Spirulina) are also
marketed as whole food, being particularly protein-rich (up to 77% dry mass) and containing all essential amino acids, a number
of important essential fatty acids (EFAs) and vitamins of the B, C, D and E groups. This microalgae market segment is expected
to grow in line with that of the wider nutraceuticals sector, which had a total global value of approximately EURO 58 billion in
2008, nearly EURO 6 billion of this being European. Helping to protect the sector during the economic downturn is the strong
preventive health care angle of nutritional supplements and the market‘s sizeable component of better-off
demographics, including an aging population. The sector is currently maturing beyond basic and sometimes unproven
supplements to one of delivering more subtle benefits that aid absorption of nutrients, and prevent a range of conditions relating
to energy metabolism, such as diabetes. Welsh HEIs and SMEs are well placed to deliver the appropriate applied science
and to develop verified microalgae-based functional foods in response to this evolving marketplace.
Cosmetics & Cosmeceuticals A number of microalgae species (esp Chlorella and Arthrospira) have become established in
the cosmetics market. Some cosmetics companies (eg, Louis Vitton) have even invested in their own microalgae production
capacity. Microalgae extracts can mainly be found in face and skincare products, eg anti-ageing cream, refreshing or
regenerant care products, emollient and as an anti-irritant in peelers. Microalgae are also represented in sun protection and hair
care products.
Omega 3 Oils The major source of omega 3 is from fish oils and they contribute about 85% of the market by volume. However,
the supply of marine sourced omega 3 is being threatened by adverse environmental conditions that have contributed to lower
DHA levels in fish oil especially from fish species from South American waters which are the major suppliers of fish oil and also
depleting global fish stocks. The adverse environmental factors coupled by depleting fish stocks can aid the global market
10
growth of algal based omega 3 which is currently contributing about 3% of the total omega 3 market. It is estimated that the EU
market for algal-sourced omega 3 is currently at EURO 40 million and 90% of the total volume is being used for infant health
products. Analyst have also revealed that omega 3 ingredients market is set to grow at 24.3% annually and projected all the
way to 2014 when it will be worth EURO 1.2 billion and this figure is for both marine and microalgal sources omega 3. Over the
years, the growth of microalgal based omega 3 has been hampered by a network of patents that have only allowed a few
players in the market i.e. Martek Biosciences (US) and Lonza (EU). However, it is anticipated that Martek‘s patents will begin
to expire in the next decade, and this will encourage more players into the market and ultimately the global microalgal
omega 3 market share will increase. Furthermore, the microalgal omega 3 market can appeal as a vegetarian source of omega
3.
Emerging Microalgae Markets

Current global, European and national regulations suggest that algaculture will expand into future markets such as Biofuels and
bioenergy, CO2capture and Effluent Remediation.
Biofuels: The main types of biofuel currently in use can be divided into those based on ethanol from carbohydrate breakdown,
e.g. from corn and sugar cane, and those based on fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) or fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEE) of lipid
fractions, e.g. from rape seed oil or palm oil. Microalgae naturally tend to produce a lipid fraction of which a significant portion is
suitable for fuel applications. First generation biofuels from algae are based on FAMEs, whilst second generation fuels will be
based on de-oxygenated fatty acids. Second generation biofuels will be compatible with current transport infrastructure with no
modification to vehicles.
Carbon abatement / mitigation: Biofuels are a carbon neutral technology and therefore eligible for funding and tax breaks
from governments as renewable sector revenue. Biofuel crops use CO2 to grow and therefore mitigate levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Strains of microalgae have been shown to grow optimally under CO2 concentrations of 5-10% (Lee and Lee,
2003). Other strains grow well at CO2 saturations of 30-70% (Hanagata et al. 1992; Iwasaki et al. 1996; Sung et al. 1999). By
controlling the pH and solution CO2 release algae could potentially grow at 100% CO2. (Olaizola, 2003),
Carbon capture: Algae capture and store CO2 so can also be used directly reduce the discharge of industrial CO2 to the
atmosphere. (Hall and House, 1993; Benemann, 1997; Hughes and Benemann, 1997; Sheehan et al., 1998; Chisti, 2007;
Huntley and Redalje, 2007). Studies have reported on microalgae sequestering CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants,
which are likely to dominate in energy generation throughout India and China (Sheehan et al, 1998).
B1.1.6: Relevance and Improving Competitiveness of SME-AGs

The innovative nature of BioAlgaeSorb creates a cost effective solution to the economic and environmental demands of sectors
that produce gaseous and liquid effluents, while providing a cheap, constant and plentiful supply of raw materials to produce
microalgae and associated value added products for a diversifying market.
Participating SME –AG’s

Members within the livestock (agriculture and aquaculture) production sector will gain a competitive advantage by improving the
cost effectiveness of their waste treatment processes by generating a valuable by-product (microalgae biomass). Meanwhile,
SME-AG‘s representing biomass power generation will additionally benefit by re-using processed microalgae
biomass for on- site energy production, as well as offering the potential for gaining carbon credits (directly or indirectly) by
reducing their GHG emissions. Participating SMEs will undertake industrial validation of the microalgae production
techniques and biomass conversion processes developed by the RTD performers (Chaumont D, 1993). The technology is
also transferable to other sectors - such as heavy industry, anaerobic digester operators, food processors and municipal water
companies.
Participating SME Technology Providers

Those SMEs involved in developing the microalgae production and processing technologies will acquire IP that is exploitable
both within Europe and globally, in addition to direct sale of processes and value added microalgal products. This includes
SMEs such as bioreactor manufacturers and lighting specialists, fluid handling and clarification, chemical conversion and
fractionation, biofuel manufacturers and specialized food supplement and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Indeed, the
opportunities for export of expertise are increased by the fact that lower latitude countries have ambient environmental
conditions (light and temperature) that may make them highly appropriate as locations for commercial microalgal production.
There is without doubt a European and global opportunity for this industry (Farrell et al., (2008).
Benefits of the Project Partnership

The SME categories represented in the project (microalgae technologists; biofuel producers; agriculture and aquaculture
producers) have limited in-house RTD capacity to resolve problems or meet the needs of their respective sectors, and less so
to identify and exploit cross-sectoral opportunities. Current global economic conditions place further constraints on the
11
resources available for in-house RTD. The higher level of private sector and government funding in this arena beyond Europe
(approximately EURO 170 million, mainly from Californian investors –Biofuels International) represents a very real risk to the
EU Member States, in terms of being able to compete economically and technically within this very important developing sector.
The participating SME-AGs provide an important mechanism for collating, prioritising and conveying the needs and problems of
their members to local, regional and EU funding agencies and RTD performers.
B1.2: Innovative Character in Relation to State of the Art

The overall aims of the project are to increase knowledge on the bioconversion of industrial and agricultural/aquacultural
effluents to microalgae biomass, as a sustainable raw material for biofuels and other value added applications;
B1.2.1: Overview
A review of current remediation practices and recent research investigating phycoremediation is described below, followed by
methods employed to grow and process algal biomass. The current and future markets for algal products are then described.
Currently, there are a limited number of applied research publications investigating phycoremediation for individual industries,
primarily at small (i.e. laboratory) scale.
B1.2.2: Effluent Remediation - Current State of the Art
Power Generation (Fossil Fuels and Biomass) and Heavy Industry

The increased awareness on the adverse consequences of global warming has resulted in the imposition of a number of
policies with the objective of reducing emission greenhouse gases. Currently, power plants are reducing their CO2 emissions by
improving on thermal efficiencies of the plants. However, current global CO2 emissions still need further reduction in order to
meet with the GHG emission strategic requirements. Consequently, a number of carbon dioxide mitigation strategies have been
investigated and these have been broadly classified under chemical reaction based and biological CO2 mitigation categories.
These concentrated sources of CO2 can be potentially captured and a number of commentators indicate that it can technically
be feasible. The most common removal processes that have been investigated for CO2 capture from flue gas can be classified
in two general categories - post-combustion separation and pre-combustion separation.
Post-combustion and pre-combustion separations: Post-combustion separation is the most established technique to
remove CO2 from flue gases. In this procedure, the CO2 capture processes are based on chemical absorption where the CO2 is
absorbed in a liquid solvent by formation of a chemically bonded compound and is removed after the flue gas combustion. This
process has proven to be expensive due to large volumes of 'solvents' required and also the energy requirements in CO2
absorption process. Precombustion separation involves reacting CO2 with oxygen and/or steam to give mainly carbon monoxide
and hydrogen. Combustion with oxygen, however, yields temperatures too large such that expensive specialised material would
be required. Chemical reaction based strategies are known to be expensive because they involve a 3 stage process of
separation, transportation and sequestration with cost of separation and compression. It has been reported that this technology
may cost in the range between EURO 40-90 per avoided ton of CO2 for natural gas combined cycle plants and coal fired power
plants (Amann et al, 2009). Therefore, because of the costly nature of the strategy, the mitigation benefits become marginal.
Geological carbon capture and storage (CCS): Geological carbon capture and storage from fossil fuel-based power plants is a
current focus for technology development in the EU (eg, proposed EC Directive on Geological Storage of CO2) and globally,
however geological CCS will not be adaptable to all scales of operation or localities (eg, where seismic events and other
geological failures may cause broken pipes). The long term CCS economics has come under scrutiny because of the
uncertainties regarding implications of CO2 leaking back into the atmosphere. Van der Zwaan and Smekens (2009) maintain
that CCS would constitute a meaningful climate change mitigation option if leakage rates are <1%/year.
Biological carbon dioxide mitigation by agricultural plants: Biological CO2 mitigation by agricultural plants has attracted much
attention but however, it has been estimated that agriculture plants contribute about 3-6 % capture of the fossil fuel
emissions, largely due to their slow growth rates. The slow growth rate limitation of agricultural plants for CO2 mitigation has led
to increased interest in microalgae as carbon dioxide capturing agents. It is estimated that algae has the ability to fix carbon
dioxide at an efficiency of between 10 to 50 times greater than that of agricultural plants, forestry and aquatic plants. The use of
higher plants with standard power generators is generally unworkable because of the high concentration of SOx and NOx in
flue emissions.
CO2 removal using microalgae: The slow growth rate limitation of agricultural plants for carbon dioxide mitigation has led to
increased interest in microalgae as CO2 capturing agents. It is estimated that algae has the ability to fix carbon dioxide at an
12
efficiency of between 10 to 50 times greater than that of agricultural plants, forestry and aquatic plants. When compared to
chemical reaction strategy, algae could completely recycle carbon dioxide into chemical energy that can be converted to fuels
thereby limiting and/or eliminating CO2 disposal issues. Furthermore, carbon dioxide algal mitigation can be made more
economically cost-effective from the production of other novel bioproducts. Microalgal CO2 fixation is potentially an ideal
technological candidate for reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and other industries
This potential has been demonstrated within a German CO2 fixation project for the production of microalgal biomass through the
use of industrial exhaust gas (Pulz and Gross, 2004). The system was shown to be feasible for a 6000 L photobioreactor.
Further, Kadam (2002) modelled the benefits of using power-plant flue gas as a source of CO2 for microalgae cultivation. The
evaluations showed that in a 50 MW plant (which emits on average about 414,000t/yr of CO2) microalgae have the capacity to
capture about 210,000 t/y. Hence, based on the European carbon dioxide emissions of 1700 Mt due to electricity generation
plants, it can be seen from estimations that there is huge capacity in Europe for implementation of microalgal technologies for
algal biomass production and carbon dioxide capture.
Microalgae can integrate well in biomass-driven electricity generating power plants. Studies show that a number of algal
species have high tolerance to flue gas carbon dioxide concentrations and moderate levels of SO x and NOx (up to 150
ppm). The marine algae Chlorococcum littorale is known to tolerate a carbon dioxide concentration of up to 40%. Other
species such as Scenedesmus obliquus and Chlorella kessleri are also known to exhibit good tolerance to high CO2
concentrations (Table
1.2). Maeda et al, (1995) confirmed this by testing these species under similar flue gas concentration of coal fired thermal
power plants for carbon dioxide concentrations of about 15% and concentrations of SOx and NOx of 10ppm and 30ppm
respectively. Hence, due to this potential, energy companies and governments worldwide have a vested interest in carbon
dioxide fixation. Recently, Avagyan (2005), showed that algae grown on the flue gas of an MIT cogeneration plant reduced
carbon dioxide concentrations by about 40% and the NOx by around 86% of the smokestack emissions. A plant in Hawaii
currently diverts flue gas from a small power plant to supply the CO2 required in microalgae production. Because of the potential
for CO2 capture, countries such as Japan and the United States have increased research efforts to find economically feasible
processes for the application of microalgal applications for carbon dioxide fixation and other environmental mitigation
applications.
It is against this background that BioAlgaeSorb will adapt the hybrid microalgae production approach for remediation of
gaseous wastes from European power plant sources. This will extend the current state-of-the-art in terms of selecting
suitable microalgae species, and defining processes for efficiently incorporating flue gases.
Table 1.2 Microalgal strains investigated for CO2 mitigation
Aqueous Effluents
It is now well known that microalgae have high potential to reduce nutrient, and organic loads from wastewater. Removal
percentages of 75%, 84% and 89% for ammonia, nitrite and phosphorous respectively have been reported (de-Bashan, 2003).
A combination of wastewater treatment and algal CO2 fixation provides incentives in the form of saving in water treatment
chemicals and the subsequent environmental benefits. Furthermore, a pathway for removal of nitrogen, phosphorous and metal
ions from wastewater is provided and the pathway provides algal biomass which can further be exploited for biofuel production
and for other innovative products.
13
Aquaculture Increasingly stringent national discharge regulations, driven principally by the EU Water Framework Directive,
have encouraged greater water re-use and the adoption of water recycling technologies by land-based fish farms, in order to
reduce total discharge water volumes and to enable more efficient separation of solids (Blancheton, 2000; Borges et al., 2003).
This trend provides greater opportunities for capture and conversion of aquaculture effluents that will be exploited in this project.
Although the precise quantity and composition of aquaculture waste may vary, it generally shares the common properties that
they are in solution, suitable for algae to utilise. If treated as a resource rather than a waste, effluent valorisation would provide
extra income to cope with effluent treatment costs and assist sustainability of the industry. Candidate aquaculture production
systems, allowing the simultaneous downstream production and harvesting of algae, should be discrete systems with a low
turnover of water. European finfish aquaculture, both pond and RAS, are excellent systems to add or combine algal culture in
terms of existing technology and potential numbers of SME‘s that can be assisted. For land-based aquaculture
production systems, it has been demonstrated experimentally that seaweeds can be used as a ―biofilter‖ to remove soluble
nutrients from liquid effluents (Deviller et al. 2004; Metaxa et al., 2006), thereby improving discharge water quality and
enabling re-use of that water within RAS. Similarly, an alternative application for soluble effluents from aquaculture systems is
as a nutrient source for the production of microalgae linked to the cultivation of edible bivalve molluscs: In the case of
diffuse agricultural effluents entering coastal waters, Lindahl (2005) has shown that sea-based cultivation of blue mussels can
be effective in ameliorating natural phytoplankton blooms, acting to recycle nutrients from the sea back to the land. Similarly,
Borges et al (2005) outlined wastewater treatment possibilities with a fish-microalgae-clam integrated aquaculture system,
using Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Tetraselmis suecica. Nutrient removal efficiency was very promising for ammonium
and nitrite-nitrogen (80–100%). Integrated aquaculture systems can also incorporate food waste, algae and fish: Sunita &
Rao (2003) collected 15 strains of algae from the wastewater of a mango processing plant and tested their ability to utilise
the waste and toxicity. The resulting algal biomass was then evaluated as feed for Tilipia mossambica. Valderrama et al
(2002) also treated recalcitrant industrial effluent with a mixture of micro and macroalgae.
Such integrated aquaculture systems are considered a promising technology, but recent efforts have been essentially devoted
to macroalgae which are only suitable for marine farms (Troell et al., 2003; Neori et al., 1998) and research with microalgae has
been neglected (Wang, 2003). BioAlgaeSorb will investigate the potential to couple microalgae cultivation with fish
production effluents in an integrated system, so that effluents can be treated more effectively and fresh water
requirements reduced.
Intensive Agriculture and Anaerobic Digestion The impact of organic wastes and effluent can potentially affect all aspects of
food production as well as presenting a broad threat to public health from land spreading practices and associated leachates
(Guan & Holley, 2003). Cultivating microalgae from soluble animal effluents, rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, presents an
alternative to the current practice of land application and ensiling. Several studies have investigated this technology on
laboratory to pilot scales in an attempt to optimise this strategy, and have shown promising results and development of this
technology.
Gonzalez et al (2008) and Tavieso et al (2006a) performed small scale studies to optimise Chlorella sorokiniana and C. vulgaris
growth when exposed to swine slurry at high concentrations. The main inhibitory factor was identified as a combination of high
pH levels and ammonia concentration. This was repeated at larger scale (16L) with pretreated swine and human effluent
(Tavieso et al., 2006b) with the overall suggestion that dilution would be required to maintain efficient removal of nitrogen and
phosphorous compounds. To counter this problem, De Godos et al. (2009) developed a medium scale biofilm-based
photobioreactor and inoculated pre-treated swine slurry with the same algal species, recording impressive processing quantities
and removal rates of nitrogen and phosphorus. The innovative design allowed simultaneous denitrification and nitrification and
the protection of microalgae from any potential inhibitory compounds. In addition, it gave efficient biomass retention of over 92%
of the biomass generated during biodegradation.
On larger scales, Kebede-Westhead et al., (2006) used 30m long algal turf scrubber raceways to estimate the cost of using
filamentous green algae (Rhizoclonium sp.) to process dairy manure effluent. Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus was
variable with up to 90% efficiency, while the projected operational cost (EURO 8 per kg N) were well below those cited for
upgrading existing water treatment plants. Later work (Mulbry et al., 2008) showed that the fatty acid content of the algae was
very constant and did not change with loading rate, manure composition or presence of auxiliary CO2. This may assist the
further processing of harvested algae, as this work suggests that a standard composition of product will be available regardless
of waste input. Clearly, there is a strategic need to address the current and future quantity of effluent produced by livestock.
Current scientific research shows promising results in terms of efficacy and upscaling, suggesting that investment and
development could yield significant ameliorative benefits. BioAlgaeSorb will work with SMEs to produce workable and
industrially validated systems for the integration of liquid agriculture effluents for use in microalgae production, drawing on
the expertise and experience of Ingrepro NV, who already apply their raceway systems for this purpose.
14
Municipal Waste Water At the present time grey water usage is hampered by the lack of any clear guidelines or water quality
standards for this resource, with only a few in existence in some countries (discussed by Li et al., 2009): To cleanse the water,
a variety of physical, chemical and biological methods have been proposed, although these could be expensive or fail to meet
re-use guidelines. Surprisingly, microalgal treatments were not evaluated in the review. Typical uses for grey water could
include discharge into recreational water bodies, irrigation and aquaculture, fire fighting or road cleaning, and toilet flushing.
To our knowledge, research has investigated treating grey water with algae. However, a few recent studies have started to
optimise sewage treatment using this method. One of the main problems to overcome is harvesting the biomass from the
treated effluent. To investigate this, De Bashan et al (2003) and Zhang et al (2008) immobilised Scendesmus sp and Chlorella
sp on calcium alginate sheets or latex beads with a growth-promoting bacterium, which allowed very efficient removal of
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds with a rapid turnover period. However, this approach needs to be upscaled to industrial
operations.
Food Processing Treatment processes for these wastes vary globally, depending on the prevailing regulations, infrastructure
and markets. The European fishery and aquaculture industries for example, produce large quantities of potentially valuable
processing by-products that are currently under-utilised. When these wastes are processed for reuse, the existing conversion
methods, such as ensiling, typically result in low grade materials of variable quality that are either discarded or used as low
grade feed ingredients. In Norway alone, circa 500,000 T pa of solid by-products from processing of farmed fish are treated
using ensiling (Bekkevold and Olafsen, 2007). Shell wastes coming from bivalve processing can represent up to 40% of total
production requiring disposal/re-use (Bekkevold & Olafsen, 2007).
Research investigating remediation of food processing waste is scant, but has shown good potential at laboratory scales for a
variety of different food wastes. Travieso et al (2008) evaluated the performance of a laboratory-scale microalgae pond treating
effluent from distillery wastewater. The biological oxygen demand was reduced by over 98% while removal of solids, nitrogen
and phosphorus compounds was between 85 and 97% efficient. Similarly, Stevenson et al (1998) investigated the use of algae
and rotifers to utilise waste water from maize processing. Research has also focused on utilising waste water from olive oil
extraction which contains phenolic compounds (Pinto et al., 2003; Hodaifa et al., 2007), and is a major pollutant in some
Mediterranean countries (Ramos-Cormenzana et al. 1995) due to its high BOD (Digman & Kim, 2008). The technology shares
application with non-food waste water such as the pulp and paper industry wastewaters, which contain phenols comparable in
concentration to those found in olive waste and are effectively utilised by diatoms and Chlorella sp. (Tarlan et al. 2002).
Although significant removal of some waste fractions was achieved using Scenedesmus sp., the process remains to be
optimised. BioAlgaeSorb will perfect the use of waste streams from participating SME-AG groups, enabling future crossover of
the technology to a variety of other sectors.
Project innovations, effluent remediation:

• Some existing information exists on microalgae using industrial flue gases and liquid effluents. BioAlgaeSorb will bring
innovation to this field by developing processes to reformulate these effluents into the most suitable form required by
microalgae. This will enable microalgae production systems to maintain consistent performance despite the vagaries in
effluent composition and quantity.
B1.2.3: Microalgae Production Technologies

The principles of microalgae cultivation in shallow open ponds, or raceways, and in closed photobioreactors (PBRs) were in
place by the 1950s (Preisig and Andersen 2005). Cultivation, harvesting and processing have been refined in the intervening
decades involving cross-disciplinary research and technological development encompassing biology, process engineering,
mathematics and physics. The potential of culturing microalgae for the purposes of effluent bioremediation and biofuel
production have long been recognised (reviewed by Chisti 2007). However existing commercial applications remain limited to
relatively low volume / high value markets for specialty food and feed ingredients (Spolaore et al. 2006), whether as whole cell
preparations (eg, Arthrospira sp, Chlorella sp), or extracts such as β-carotene and astaxanthin.
Closed Photobioreactor (PBR) Systems

Closed microalgae bioreactors offer theoretical advantages in terms of avoiding contamination, yielding higher culture densities
and providing closer control over physicochemical conditions, with many more designs being described in the scientific
literature (Carvalho et al. 2006, Eriksen 2008) and in patents than have been commercialised. These mainly involve
photoautrophic production using natural or artificial lighting, although conventional stirred fermenters can be used to culture
some microalgae species heterotrophically at high densities, without light (Harel and Place 2003).
15
Complete PBR systems typically incorporate the following integrated components: (i) the culture vessel containing the
microalgae culture, usually a light permeable vessel designed to present a short optical path under external illumination (see
reviews by Carvalho et al. 2006, Eriksen 2008); (ii) the light delivery system typically consisting of, in the case of artificially
illuminated reactors, banks of fluorescent or metal halide lamps that provide photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, 400-
700 nm) to the culture, while outdoor reactors may use natural incident light or solar collection devices of varying complexity;
(iii) the gas exchange system which delivers carbon dioxide, and removes photosynthetically generated oxygen that may inhibit
metabolism or otherwise damage the microalgae if allowed to accumulate; (iv) the harvesting system that is involved in
concentrating the microalgae for downstream applications. Closed PBRs may be operated entirely manually, or, increasingly,
incorporate automated monitoring and feedback subsystems to keep the internal culture conditions more stable. PBRs may be
operated in batch, semi-continuous or continuous (chemostat) modes.
Simple tubular PBRs are widely used in commercial aquaculture to produce live microalgae as a feed source for larvae of
marine finfish, crustacea and bivalve molluscs (Muller-Feuga et al. 2003). The most common design is a semi-enclosed
transparent column manufactured from polyethylene tubing or fibreglass (unit operating volume up to circa 500L, diameter to
approximately 0.4 m), bubbled from the base with CO2-enriched air and illuminated externally via natural solar irradiation or
artificial lighting. Such systems are not optimised in terms of illumination or gas transfer, but nonetheless offer a robust method
of producing live microalgae at sufficient scale and with a suitable cost structure for commercial aquaculture hatcheries
worldwide.
More sophisticated closed PBRs are designed to offer shorter optical paths under external illumination, mainly achieved using
tubular or flat plate vessel configurations manufactured from transparent materials (reviews by Carvalho et al. 2006, Eriksen
2008). These designs are intended to minimise light attenuation between the wall and the centre of the culture vessel, with
typical tube diameters / plate thicknesses of ca. 0.05 m. Tubular PBRs vary in their configuration, including horizontal, vertical,
helical and α-shaped designs, whereas flat plate PBRs are typically thin rectangular chambers oriented vertically or inclined
towards the sun, with or without alveolar (ribbed) plates incorporated. More novel methods of PBR illumination include solar
collection devices such as light guides and fresnel lenses (Zijffers et al. 2008, Masojidek et al. 2009) and energy efficient,
monochromatic light emitting diodes (Gordon and Polle 2007; Wang et al. 2007). The relatively high construction and operating
costs and complexity of operation of closed PBRs limits the number of large-scale commercial systems operating globally to
high-value production runs.
Despite their narrow dimensions, studies have demonstrated rapid light attenuation in high density closed PBRs within just
several mm of the vessel wall, due to a combination of mutual shading and light scattering by microalgal cells and light
absorption by their pigments (review by Eriksen 2008). Researchers have sought to explain the complexities of light distribution
within PBRs using radial or diffuse light distribution models, enabling system productivity to be predicted in some cases
(Eriksen 2008).
16
Open Ponds and Raceways

By volume, most commercial microalgae production is for R-select species such as Chlorella sp., or extremophile species, such
as Arthrospira sp, Dunaliella salina and Haematococcus pluvialis; these are grown in shallow fertilized ponds or raceways
(Sheehan et al. 1998). Raceways typically consist of independent closed loop recirculation channels in which paddle wheel-
generated flow is guided around bends by baffles placed in the flow channel; such systems can yield productivities of greater
than 10 g ash free dry weight m-2 day-1 (Sheehan et al. 1998).
Figure 1.2. Illustration of an open raceway system (Tredici, 2009) and

Photo Bioreactor System (nrel, 2009)
Engineering designs and operating procedures for cultivating these organisms in unmixed ponds and stirred raceways have
been thoroughly studied (e.g. Borowitzka 2005). Shallow water depths of 0.2 to 0.3 m are typically used, while areal dimensions
range from 0.5 to 1.0 ha for raceway or central pivot ponds (circular ponds incorporating centrally pivoted rotating agitator), to
greater than 200 ha for extensive ponds used in Australia for D. salina production. Water management procedures vary
according to the intensity of operation and may include direct CO 2 addition under automated pH-stat control in shallow
raceways. Biomass may be harvested by flocculation or centrifugation (del Campo et al. (2007). While microalgae productivities
will inevitably be sub-maximal in open raceways, it is generally envisaged that such systems will form the basis of microalgae
production on the huge scale required for biofuels, due to their simplicity and low costs (Sheehan et al. 1998).
Project innovations, microalgae culture systems:

The project will adapt the hybrid microalgae production approach for remediation of aqueous and gaseous wastes from
European industrial and agricultural/aquacultural sources. This will extend the current state-of-the-art in terms of
selecting suitable microalgae species, defining processes for efficiently incorporating waste streams, optimising
physico-chemical conditions in closed photobioreactors (PBRs) and downstream open raceways, maintaining hygiene /
avoiding contamination, reusing nutrients and developing harvesting strategies.
Mechanistic models will be developed and applied for the first time as a key innovation for optimising microalgae
productions systems and operations.
B1.2.4: Microalgal Cell Harvesting

Microalgal cultures are characterized by a high dilution ratio (a typical figure for the culture concentration is less than 1 g/L).
Dewatering mechanisms are required for cell concentration and harvesting (as well as some extraction phases) which roughly
correspond to 20–30% of the total cost of production ( Sukenik et al., 1988; Grima et al., 2003; Zittelli et al., 2006). Key
operations currently used are gravity field sedimentation, centrifugation, flotation and filtration. The first challenge is to
concentrate cells from a relatively dilute solutions 0.5 -5 kg.m-3 dry weight to solutions between 20 and 100 times more
concentrated than the starting material. In a concentrated state, (7-10% solids) the rheology of the packed microalgae start to
become non Newtonian and handling of the cells becomes problematic. At about 15-20% solids the systems are no longer fluid
17
and not amenable to pumping, which makes handling more difficult. It is generally preferable to maintain the system as a liquid
slurry of Newtonian character to facilitate efficient handling for further downstream processing using pumps. Although
sedimentation is a simple process it is very slow (0.1 to 2.6 cm.h-1) (Choi et al, 2006) and in high temperature environments
much of the biomass produced will deteriorate during such a harvesting process. Sedimentation alone is largely dismissed as a
viable havesting method. However, flocculation caused by alkaline adjustment has been used to effectively remove Dunellial
testolata (Horiuchi et al) and Cheatoceros sp from fluids (Csordas,2004, Knuckley, 2006).
Centrifugation In most large-scale centrifuges, a centrifugal force equivalent to 5-10,000 g is possible and with large cells this
can achieve over 95% removal under correct operational conditions (Molina Grima et al 2004). However, at large scale the use
of centrifuges becomes more difficult as capital costs increase. This, together with the fact that specialised materials of
construction (high strength, corrosion free alloys) and high maintenance costs required to operate in saline environments
means that centrifugation is expensive. The energy costs of about 1kWh.m-3 have been quoted for centrifuges (Molina Grima et
al 2004) and the lower capital, maintenance and management costs required for membrane filtration technology makes this
approach more attractive (Wang et al 2006).
Flotation Flotation is a commonly used approach to remove algae from reservoir water prior to its use as drinking water. It is
well developed and mature set of processes. Typically the water is initially ozonated, after which the sensitised cells are then
treated with about 10 ppm polyelectrolyte salts (typically aluminium) prior to being subjected to dissolved air flotation (DAF).
DAF involves the generation of fine bubbles (< 10 μm) produced by a decompression of pressurized fluid, which then adhere to
the flocs making them very buoyant causing them to rise rapidly to the surface of a separation tank. The resultant concentrated
cell foam (7-10% dry weight) is then removed as slurry. These processes work well in fresh water and are capable of dealing
with the large volumes required in commercial scale plant (>10,000 m3 per day) (Crossley et al 2002). The main disadvantage
of this approach is the contamination of the materials with the floc agent which may significantly reduce their value (Molina
Grima et al 2003). Although these methods have not been proven in saline environments on a large scale, the integration of
floatation into the bioreactor has been demonstrated. Using an integrated reactor and foam fractionator under appropriate
conditions, up to 90% of a Chaetoceros sp. could be removed (Csordas and Wang 2004).
Filtration There are many modes of filtration that can be used to concentrate cells, the most simple of which is dead end
filtration. This is achieved with large quantities of dilute microalgae by using packed bed filters (mixed media or sand). T his
type of filtration is limited by the rheological properties of the algae as these form compressible cakes which easily blind filters.
This technique has been used successfully in the separation from reservoirs, where the algae concentrations are relatively low.
The amount of water that can be processed is severely limited by the characteristics of algal materials, e.g. compressible cakes
and the presence of extra-cellular foulant materials. These processes involve relatively very low energy consumption but the
frequency of washing with loading increases energy costs and reduces filter productivity. Pressure or vacuum filtration can be
used but concentration of the alga is required for these processes to be effective. Power consumptions for these operations are
in the order of 0.3 to 2 kWh.m-3. To avoid problems in dead end filtration, cross flow filtration can be used; several studies have
been published and demonstrate that high concentrations of algal cell can be attained (up to 100 kg.m -3). These filtration
systems are easily upscaled, with rapid advances being made in their use and operation. Several studies have been carried out
on laboratory scales and have shown that these systems are capable concentrating the algae and be used in downstream
fractionation (Rossignol et al, 1999; Vandanjon et al 1999 and Rossi et al 2004). Reducing the process volume by at least a
factor of 100 significantly reduces the costs of disruption and fractionation stages downstream. Although a definitive study on
large scale algae harvesting has yet to be published, work has shown that the costs of the microfiltration river water are as low
0.2 kWh.m-3 of water processed. Several variables associated with the choice of membranes and type of organisms could
increase this cost and there is considerable scope for optimisation of this process. As a guide to potential improvement, th e
costs of desalination by reverse osmosis, where a far higher pressure process is used, have fallen dramatically (85%) over the
past decade to less than €1/m-3 and with energy costs being a as low a 3 kWh.m-3. This is largely down to better membrane
technology, greater membrane longevity; increase scale of operation and better system management.
Project innovations, microalgae harvesting methods:

Novel rapid separation technologies and separation schemes will be developed, exploiting the unique properties of
microalgae to provide stable high quality concentrates and commodity materials e.g. protein and lipid fractions that will
go for further refinement and purification to produce high value products;
New methods of preservation and storage will be developed to allow high value algae-derived materials to be kept for
long periods, thus maintaining their value and simplifying marketing and distribution.
B1.2.5: Microalgae Upgrading

Cell disruption To maximise the value of the materials obtained from the processes, rapid and precise mechanical disruption of
the cells is chosen in most cases as this avoids further chemical contamination of the algal preparation whilst preserving most
18
of the functionality of the material within the cell. There are two processes proven on large scale, homogenisation and bead
milling. Cell homogenisation involves the process fluid being forced through an orifice; this creates rapid pressure change as
well high liquid shear impinges on the algae causing disruption. The second approach is the use of bead mills, these are
vessels packed with small glass beads that are agitated at great speed. The result is that cells are disrupted, but the level of
disruption is usually dependent upon the residence time in the system (Doucha and Livansky (2008). Cell strength size and
shape of cells affect the performance of both methods. Optimisation of breakage is important as this involves the use of large
amounts of energy and also affects the physical and chemical nature of the end product (e.g. extent to which lipid membranes
are disintegrated). Scale up of these devices brings about some efficiency gains based on improved pump performance. Bead
mills give an equivalent performance but design of the milling chamber and fluid mixing can have a significant affect, while
disrupter requiring multiple passes are inefficient and allows poor mixing to given uneven process treatment of the cells. There
is considerable scope to study these processes to find the correct breakage procedure, particularly the manipulation biological
factors (cell wall strength and possible pre-treatments to achieve this) associated with this process.
Fractionation and oil recovery After cell disruption, microalgal cells are fractionated. Generally, the principles of separation of
materials from disrupted cells are well established and it is only the development of specific optimised protocols that recover all
parts of the microalgae at maximum value. Many specific one-product protocols exist, for example the use of solvents (such as
hexane) and salt precipitation of proteins which contaminate the fractions and require further remediation. It is for these
reasons that methods of separation based upon size, charge and density are preferred: Fat droplet separation can be achieved
by microfiltration, while the soluble proteins, using a diafiltration process, will pass through a microfiltration membrane creating
a fat-free, soluble protein fraction that can be concentrated and dried. This material can be used as source for further refining
(enzymes functional protein etc) alternatively the density differences may be exploited using centrifugation which is more
effective in the absence of emulsifying soluble proteins. Further fractionation of the cell debris is also possible so that the cell
wall materials (carbohydrates and silica) and other organics such as pigments may be isolated.
Thermo-chemical conversion – pyrolysis Pyrolysis is a technique used to upgrade biomass at reasonably large scales
through the slow heating in the absence of oxygen to produce gaseous, oil and char products. Cracking is a technique used to
breakdown larger hydrocarbons, and other molecules, into smaller, more desirable hydrocarbons in the presence of a size
selective catalyst and the absence of oxygen and can be used to further upgrade the oil fraction from pyrolysis processes. In a
recent study Grierson et al (2008) investigated the pyrolysis of dried and finely ground algae biomass using a slow pyrolysis
method; it was found that up to 43% by volume heavy bio-oil could be produced for Tetraselmis and Chlorella species.
Catalysts used for cracking include zeolites (Twaiq 1999) and other mesoporous aluminosilicates (Twaiq 2003). A number of 3-
dimensional structures called pillared clays containing various metals have also been investigated for their ability to crack
vegetable oils such as canola oil, palm oil and sunflower oil into biofuels (Kloprogge 2005). During the last two decades
pyrolysis has been optimised for a number of algal species using temperatures of up to 600°C, yielding liquid components of up
to 70wt% of organics in the algal cell (3-10). Of primary importance is the Energy Consumption Ratio (ECR) for the process
(defined as the energy required to heat the algal cells up to the reaction temperature over the available energy of oil produced).
For microalgae, the process is more economical than processing lignocellulosic materials and is more easily manipulated.
Weimin et al. (7) investigated the slow vacuum pyrolysis of dried samples of Chlorella protothecoides. The amount of oil and
gas produced during pyrolysis was greater than the content of crude oil in the cells, indicating that other chemicals such as
protein and water soluble carbohydrate were converted into fuel oil or gas by thermochemical techniques. In a successive study
Miao et al. (10) compared the product of the fast pyrolysis of autotrophic and heterotrophic Chlorella p. They found that
heterotrophic Chlorella has a stable bio-oil yield 3.4 times higher than autotrophic sample of the same cells, and double that of
wood - suggesting that there is a commercial potential for large-scale production of liquid fuels from microalgae by fast
pyrolysis. In general, pyrolysis can be a useful approach for dried, or even untreated biomass and biomass residues, or for use
in local co-firing of biomass. However, in pyrolysis of entire algal biomass, it remains unclear whether the return in oil in any
way improves the yield that might be extracted from the biomass for upgrading. There is also the question of the high
commercial value biochemicals; pyrolysis would destroy these. However, there may well be a place for pyrolysis of the residual
biomass after oil and high value product extraction to maximize the yield from the biomass.
Catalytic Trans-esterification Biodiesel is produced via trans-esterification, where triglycerides present in vegetable oils are
catalytically esterified, usually with methanol (methanolysis), to yield the corresponding FAME and glycerol. Both homogenous
(same phase) and heterogenous (different phase) catalysis can be used to drive this reaction. The main distinction between
these two types is the possible recovery and recycling of the (solid) catalyst in heterogenous catalysis, potentially reducing the
overall conversion costs.
Homogeneous acid or base catalysis: Homogeneous acid or base catalysis have the advantage of the catalyst being in
constant contact with the reaction mixture leading to increased rates, and is a generally used method for biodiesel production
from seed oils. A problem with homogeneous (acid or base) catalysts is that they suffer from the requirement of a neutralisation
step to remove the catalyst. Additionally, plant and algal oils can contain free fatty acids (FFAs) at; concentrations of up to 25%
19
(Dunstan et al. 1994). If these are not pre-treated (esterified) then they can react with homogeneous base catalysts during
trans-esterification and form the corresponding soaps, leading to downstream separation problems (Huber et al 2006). FFAs
may also be formed from water reacting with FAME during storage; FAME fuels have a tendency to hydrolysis or undergo
oxidative decomposition and storage of the fuel product must be maximized for longevity (Paligová et al 2008).
Project innovations, microalgae-based products:

The adoption of a biorefinery approach will increase both the numbers of products and the overall financial return per
unit microalgal biomass compared to present processing techniques (e.g., by combining oil extraction for transport fuel
with pyrolysis of residue for electricity generation);
Biofuel production efficiency will be increased by using microalgal rather than traditional plant biomass, owing to higher
areal productivity of microalgae and the ability to utilise the entire biomass;
The screening of microalgal biomass fractions for useful chemical compounds and, vitally, as feedstock compounds for
the traditional chemical industry will be extended. Pigments, PUFAs and other high value compounds have been
identified and may be separated out with the oils suitable for upgrading to fuel and lubricant components (the latter
fractions having received relatively little attention to date);
The conversion of microalgal lipids to biofuels has been almost exclusively centred around the conversion to fatty acid
methyl esters (FAME). A much smaller field is the production of decarboxylated fuel, which unlike FAME may directly
replace current road transport and heating fuels. Within the project new solid catalysts will be investigated for the
efficient production of both FAME and deoxygenated biofuels;
Fractionated materials will be assessed for their suitability in food and feed applications.
Efficient heterogeneous (solid) catalysts: Efficient heterogeneous (solid) catalysts offer economic benefits in producing
biofuels since, unlike homogeneous catalysts, they are easily separated after trans-esterification, and so can be readily
recycled, lowering production costs. The precise protocols have yet to be optimised but advances offer potentially robust and
FFA tolerant catalysts for trans-esterification catalysts for microalgae lipid feedstocks.
20
B1.3: Contribution to Advancement of Knowledge / Technological Progress
As reported in the preceding Section, there is unprecedented global interest in cultivated microalgae for biofuels and other
applications, coincident with tighter than ever EU regulation of industrial and agricultural emissions to mitigate climate change
(GHGs) and maintain high water quality (soluble nutrients). Substantial work has been carried out in the past on specific
aspects of effluent bioremediation (gaseous and aqueous) and on microalgae exploitation for different purposes, but the
available technologies have not yet been combined or extended in the integrated manner proposed by BioAlgaeSorb for the
benefit of diverse groups of SMEs. The BioAlgaeSorb approach will be developed from the existing knowledge base by an
expert team of RTD performers in collaboration with well established commercial microalgae technology providers, acting on
behalf of European SME AG members in the bioenergy and food production sectors. An integrated knowledge platform will be
founded and synergistic links established between currently disparate SME – AG sectors and between SME-AGs / RTDs.
The main contributions to advancement of knowledge / technological progress will be provided through:
Enhanced understanding of requirements for microalgae mass cultivation using industrial and aquacultural/
agricultural effluents as nutrient sources. A novel approach will be developed to ensure that the effluents produced at
SME-AG member locations are suitable for microalgae cultivation. Following characterisation of the different effluent
streams, pre-treatment processes will be developed for each effluent category, followed by reformulation into a consistent
nutrient package for microalgae. This will enable microalgae cultivation systems installed at SME-AG member locations to
maintain consistent output despite variations in effluent abundance and composition and will furthermore yield a valuable
source of nutrients for other applications such as plant growth.
Development of reliable, scalable microalgae production processes tailored to particular effluent sources, guided by a
mechanistic modelling approach. In order to capitalise on the remediation potential of microalgae, there is a pressing
need to develop scalable biomass production processes for implementation at SME-AG member sites. The
importance of this is reflected in the high abundance of scientific literature (often lab scale studies) and patents in the area
of microalgae cultivation, contrasting with the relatively low numbers of processes and systems adopted commercially.
BioAlgaSorb will be developed from the well proven microalgae production systems provided by participating SMEs.
Uniquely, the configuration and management of these systems will be optimised for pre-treated effluents via computer
modelling. The approach to be taken is to start with an established mechanistic model of microalgal growth. This model is a
dynamic (not steady-state) photoacclimative description of temperature-light-multinutrient limited growth. This type of model
is essential to properly consider the cost-benefit implications of the process (for example, to properly include nutrient
consumption, self-shading of suspensions etc.). The model is not a crude thermodynamic, Monod or Droop quota model.
Rather it is founded on well-grounded physiological understanding, with feedback interactions describing nutrient transport
(N, P, Fe, Si etc; differentiating between N-sources, for example), photosynthesis and photoacclimation (with changes in
light and nutrients), respiration, and changing chemical stoichiometry (e.g. with changes in nutrient status). This modelling
structure will be employed within BioAlgaeSorb to provide a mechanistic basis for a thorough and transparent analysis for
the design, geometries and efficient operation of coupled microalgae photobioreactors and raceways at SME-AG member
locations.
Enhanced understanding of microalgae harvesting and stabilisation methods. The harvesting of microalgae cells from
dilute solutions (~1-5 kg biomass/m3 process water) poses a considerable technical challenge for large scale
cultivation. The costs of current harvesting methods restrict commercial microalgae production to high value applications
(eg, production of nutritional supplements – PUFA, pigments and vitamins). A number of established harvesting methods
exist, but each of these has limitations, eg traditional approaches include dissolved air floatation (DAF) incorporating poly-
ionic flocculants (Al, Fe or ionic polymers), centrifuges and flocculation. Most processes add materials to the system that
are undesirable and devalue the quality of the material, and/or are reliant on very expensive equipment that is intolerant of
saline solutions. BioAlgaeSorb will develop a series of processes that avoid the limitations of other harvesting methods and
determine their most appropriate usage in relation to various ―operating envelopes‖ encountered by SME-AG
members. These operating envelopes are based upon the physical conditions associated with the process water
(chemical and physical characteristics), the microalgae species (structural and physical properties) and the
economics of the local operations. The following specific processing methods will be investigated and their
potential for cost effective implementation evaluated: electro- flocculation (EF); dissolved air flotation (DAF) using
ozone as a pre-treatment; microfiltration; centrifugation; hybrid processes (combinations of the above). Once
harvested, pre-treatment and preservation procedures (freezing of concentrates and spray drying) will be developed
to provide high quality stable materials.
Development of efficient processes for microalgae fractionation and biorefining, to yield biofuel and bioenergy
substrates, food- and feedstuffs and fine chemicals. The development of an integrated biorefinery for microalgae
biomass is a central innovative feature of the BioAlgaeSorb project, designed to maximise the numbers of usable
microalgae products and economic return per unit biomass produced. The elements of this biorefinery are shown
21
schematically in Figure 1 (Section 1) and encompass direct thermo-chemical conversion of intact biomass (or biomass
residue following oil extraction) to liquid biofuel, physical separation of intact biomass into major fractions (protein, lipid,
carbohydrate), upgrading of the lipid fraction into current generation biodiesel (trans-esterification) and into
―green‖ biodiesel (decarboxylation and decarbonylation of fatty acids), and extraction of specific valuable
pigments (phycobiliproteins). This new microalgal biorefinery will provide a series of processing options that can be
tailored to the needs of different SME-AG sectors and individual SMEs. The biorefinery will furthermore offer a template
for the broader microalgal biotechnology sector internationally, raising the impact of the investment beyond the immediate
consortium and providing opportunities to SMEs for licencing, etc.
Advancement of knowledge on the economic viability of “phyco-remediation” technologies for European SMEs. Of crucial
importance, the BioAlgaeSorb project will examine the whole life cycle costs of the processes developed, requiring the
coupling of a description of the processes themselves with that of an economic model. This will take into account not
only the economics of running the new processes, but also the cost/benefit of not having to otherwise handle the previously
unremediated effluents. A new coupled technical-economic model will be developed and run under different physical
forcings (e.g., meteorological data, waste water stream composition) and also under different economic scenarios (cost of
fertilizers, of land, energy, and of the engineering plant). From this analysis will emerge data that will indicate under which
conditions the operation of the whole system will be cost negative, positive, or neutral, hence informing the SME-AGs and
their members sector on where greatest leverage is to be gained in applying new BioAlgaeSorb technologies.
B1.4: Quality and Effectiveness of S/T Methodology and Associated Work Plan
B1.4.1: Overall Strategy of the Work Plan
Introduction
The participating SME AGs and AGs have identified complementary challenges and key areas of opportunity and have
recruited an experienced RTD partnership to develop new processes and products on their behalf. The project work plan has
been organised into an integrated series of work packages, A thorough scientific and technological foundation will be developed
in WP 1 to guide the definition of specifications based on the needs and regulations in the industry and in regions of the EU.
Based on the outputs from WP 1, the RTD performers with input from the SME-AGs and SMEs will in WPs 2-5 carry out RTD
activities to define system and process specifications and to design & build prototypes, test and optimise and finally validate
(WP 6) and implement the process into the industry by various activities including the establishment of demonstration, training
and dissemination activities (WP7 & 8).
Research and Technological Development Activities

The work plan has been structured to exploit the skills of the participating RTD performers, namely SU (microalgae production
technologies; mechanistic modelling; bio-process engineering), TI (fluids handling; process control, mechanical enginering,
prototype design and manfacture), UDUR (upgrading of biomass lipids to biofuels, in particular via heterogeneous catalysts);
HCMR (microalgae production technologies; microalgae-based effluent remediation) and UFL (thermo-chemical biomass
conversions [incl pyrolysis]; liquid biofuels).
All RTDs will be involved in building up the scientific and technological understanding in WP1, with assistance from the SME-
AGs who will contact their members and facilitate an information flow between SMEs and the RTDs. Preliminary
characterisation of different effluent streams will also be performed in WP1 to guide the specific direction of the subsequent
WPs. The next 4 WPs will develop technologies for each part of the value chain, involving combined inputs from the RTDs and
SMEs. In WP2, HCMR will lead the RTD on microalgae biomass production aided by VAS and Ingrepro; SU will develop
biomass harvesting processes for these SMEs in WP3; UDU will lead the development of biomass upgrading methods on
behalf of VFT in WP4; and UFL will devise thermo-chemical conversions to biofuels for Sea Marconi in WP5. In WP6 include
system integration to ensure focus on the whole value chain from micro-algae production to thermo-chemical conversion to bio-
fuels. WP6 furher include industrial validation/benchmarking, economic evaluations as well as risk assessment and contingecy
management of the RTD activities.
Demonstration Activities
Within WP7, the SME AGs will arrange demonstrations to their members as well as include the broader audience. The
participating SMEs will further extend the audience for demonstration activities via their contact networks and existing custumer
base. The demonstration will include the business of prototype equipment and processes for microalgae biomass production,
harvesting, upgrading and thermo-chemical conversion that have been developed in the preceding WPs and will be coordinated
with the running of lab and fulls scale tests of the different systems.
22
Other Activities
WP8 include Innovation Related Activities and Training. The SME-AGs will play a major role in the dissemination and
exploration activities and a primary target for the activities will be their members across Europe. The dissemination channels
will be input to publications, promotion and demo CDs, leaflets and other printed material, web based activity, online courses
and exhibitions, conferences, seminars, especially towards end-user communities and associations in the relevant industrial
sectors and especially the bio-energy sector. The success depends on the industry sector driving the system itself and that the
system specifically targets the needs of the ME companies in the relevant sectors.
Management Activities
Co-ordination between the EC and project consortium ensuring that all milestones, reports, and project financial administration
is prepared in accordance with the contractual requirements. Integration of effort between RTD performers and partners.
Monitoring that each of the partners and the RTD performers use their own resources effectively through internal project
management. Development of a technology implementation plan to aid the dissemination and exploitation process. Prepare
Dissemination and Utilization plan (DUP).
Risks
Having undertaken an analysis for each of the project activities, the following risks have been identified and contingency
measures put in place to minimise any impacts on delivery of the new BioAlgaeSorb technologies.
Table 1.3: Risk Description for the Project

Probab. Impact Risk
Risk Description (L1 M2 (L1 M2 Score Preventive Actions Solutions
H3) H3) (P x I)
MANAGEMENT
The consortium has the Appoint new consortium
Changes to consortium members
Medium Medium 4 resources necessary for members / assign replacement
or key personnel during project substitution staff
Follow conflict resolution rules
Conflict resolution processes in
Management disagreements and handle the conflict at
Medium Medium 4 place and conveyed from start of
among partners appropriate level in mgmt
project
structure
TECHNICAL
Failure to develop effective
Work plan focuses on effluents,
methods for microalgae biomass Adjust work plan for the most
Low High 3 systems and species that are
production using pre-treated suitable effluent sources
effluents as nutrients known to fit criteria
Failure to provide sufficient Selection of partners and
Obtain biomass samples from
samples of microalgae biomass Low High 3 technologies with proven track
outside the consortium
for downstream processing record in biomass production
New harvesting methods
Failure to develop novel biomass Adjust work plan towards more
Medium Low 3 developed from proven
harvesting methods conventional processing methods
technologies
Selection of partners and Confine the scope of RTD on
Failure to develop effective novel
Medium Medium 4 technologies with proven track refinery and upgrading to most
refinery and upgrading processes
record in refinery & upgrading promising lines
Failure to tailor pyrolysis
Pyrolysis methods will be Adjust pyrolysis RTD to fewer
processes for microalgae Low Medium 3
extension of proven technologies microalgae species
biomass
Failure to provide effective
Selection of partners and
technical & economic appraisals Extend evaluation tasks more
High Low 3 evaluation methods with proven
of new BioAlgaeSorb broadly within the consortium
track record i related fields
technologies
INNOVATION-RELATED
IPR policy clear within consortium Adhere to agreed written
IPR disagreements Medium Medium 4
agreement from outset procedures
SME AGs suitably resourced for Extend dissemination activities
Ineffective dissemination Low Medium 3
dissemination more widely within the consortium
B1.4.2: Timing of Work Packages and their Components

The timing of Work Packages and their components is summarised in Table 1.4, below.
23
Table 1.4: Timing of Work Packages and Their Components

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
No Task Time Lead
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
D
WP 1 Scientific Understanding and Advancement of Operational Parameters SU D
M
T 1.1 Physico-chemical Requirements for Optimal Microalgae Production SU
T 1.2 Microalgae Harvesting Processes SU
T 1.3 Microalgae Biomass Conversion Processes UFL
T 1.4 Critique of Modelling Approaches for Technical and Economic Evaluations SU
D
D D
WP 2 Optimization of Microalgae Cultivation on Effluents HCMR D M
D D
M
T 2.1 Effluent Characterization, Upstream Processing and Reformulation as Microalgae Nutrients SU
Define Culture Conditions for Selected Microalgae Species Using Pre-treated Aqueous and Gaseous
T 2.2 HCMR
Effluents
Define Bioreactor and Raceway Operating Conditions for Selected Microalgae Species, Effluent
T 2.3 HCMR
Sources and Operating Locations
T 2.4 Control of Nutrient Delivery and Optimisation of Transfers in Microalgae Cultivation Systems TI
T 2.5 Modelling Approaches for Technical Evaluations SU
WP 3 Microalgae Harvesting Technologies SU D
D D D
M
T 3.1 Colloidal Characterisation of Selected Microalgae to Facilitate Optimal Harvest Conditions SU
T 3.2 Optimisation of Conventional Harvesting Technologies in the Context of Microalgae Culturing Systems SU
T 3.3 Characterisation of Microalgae Concentrates and Their Preservation SU
T 3.4 Investigation of Hybrid Harvesting Technologies: Electro-Flocculation SU
T 3.5 Development and Assessment of a Novel Flotation Technique Without the Use of Deleterious Additives SU
D
D D
WP 4 Refinery and Upgrading Processes for Microalgae Biomass UDUR D
D M M
T 4.1 Disruption of Microalgae SU
Physical Separation / Fractionation Schemes for Fractionation of Disruptates to Produce Stable
T 4.2 SU
Materials
T 4.3 Chemical Conversions UDUR
WP 5 Thermo-chemical Conversions of Microalgae Biomass UFL D D M D

D
M
T 5.1 Design and Construction of a Laboratory Scale Pyrolysis Reactor UFL
T 5.2 Installation, System Set-up and Testing UFL
T 5.3 Chemical-Physical Characterisation of Products UFL
T 5.4 Preliminary Tests for Heat and Power Production UFL
WP 6 System Integration and Industrial Validation TI D D D
T 6.1 System Integration TI
T 6.2 Industrial Validation / Benchmarking TI
T 6.3 Modelling Approaches for Economic Evaluations SU
T 6.4 Risk Assessment and Contingency Management TI
WP 7 Demonstration Activities TI D
T 7.1 Demonstrations to SME Staff TI
T 7.2 Demonstrations to IAG Staff TI
24
D
D D
WP 8 Innovation Related Activities / Training NoBio D d d d d d d d d D
d d d
T 8.1 Protection of IPR AEBIOM
T 8.2 Uptake of Results by Proposers NoBio
T 8.3 Dissemination of Knowledge / Promotion of Knowledge AEBIOM
T 8.4 Training AEBIOM
WP 9 Consortium Management NoBio D

D
T 9.1 Consortium Management NoBio
T 9.2 Technical Management NoBio
T 9.3 IRA Management AEBIOM
T 9.4 Organise Meetings NoBio
25
B1.4.3: Work Package Descriptions
Table 1.3a: Work Package List

WP Type of Lead Lead Person- Start End
Work Package Title
No. Activity Part. Part. months Month Month
Scientific Understanding and Advancement of
WP 1 RTD 8 SU 19.5 1 6
Operational Parameters
WP 2 Optimization of Microalgae Cultivation on Effluents RTD 11 HCMR 102.5 4 34
WP 3 Microalgae Harvesting Technologies RTD 8 SU 26 6 24
Refinery and Upgrading Processes for Microalgae
WP 4 RTD 10 UDUR 44 6 30
Biomass
WP 5 Thermo-chemical Conversions of Microalgae Biomass RTD 12 UFL 81 1 36
WP 6 System Integration and Industrial Validation RTD 9 TI 46.5 1 36
WP 7 Demonstration Activities DEM 9 TI 25 18 34
WP 8 Innovation Related Activities / Training OTHER 1 NoBio 36 1 36
WP 9 Consortium Management MGT 1 NoBio 24 1 36
TOTAL 404.5
Table 1.3b: Deliverables List

Deliv. WP Dissem. Delivery
Deliverable Title Nature
No. No. Level Date
Reference document on current technologies for microalgae mass
D 1.1 cultivation and biorefinery approaches suitable for BioAlgaeSorb 1 R PU Month 6
applications
Report reviewing existing modelling approaches suitable for technical and
D 1.2 1 R PU Month 6
economic evaluation of microalgae-based effluent remediation
Report on the composition, formulation and costs of effluent-derived
microalgae nutrient media and gases
Report on the efficacy of pre-treated / reformulated microalgae effluents
and gases for microalgae cultivation - laboratory scale studies
Report on the efficacy of pre-treated / reformulated microalgae effluents
D 2.3 and gases for microalgae cultivation - photobioreactor and raceway 2 R PU Month 24
studies
Report on engineering processes for the controlled delivery of microalgae
D 2.4 nutrients and efficient mixing and transport of microalgae within 2 R PU Month 18
cultivation systems
Report on the technical feasibility of the methods developed for effluent
D 2.5 remediation and microalgae biomass production at SME AG member 2 R PU Month 24
locations, based on computer modeling
Report on the performance of prototype microalgae cultivation units at
SME AG member locations
D 3.1 Report on the physical characteristics of the four microalgae species 3 R PU Month 9
D 3.2 Report on optimal harvesting procedures using conventional technologies 3 R PU Month 12
Report on physical and chemical properties of microalgae concentrates
and their drying characteristics
Report on the feasibility of novel microalgae harvesting processes:
electro-flocculation and ozonated air floatation
Report on the optimal conditions for biomass disruption of four
microalgae species
Report on the production of stabilised, fractionated microalgal materials
and their composition
Report on transesterification and decarboxylation of model compounds
using heterogeneous catalysts and enzyme catalysts
D 4.4 Report on pyrolysis of microalgal fraction using heterogeneous catalysts 4 R PU Month 24
Report on transesterification and decarboxylation of microalgal fractions
using heterogeneous catalysts
26
D 5.1 Description of the design of the pilot reactor 5 R PU Month 6
D 5.2 Description of the test program of the pyrolysis unit 5 R PU Month 12
D 5.3 Report on the result of bio-oil production and analysis 5 R PU Month 30
D 5.4 Report on the result of bio-oil in prime movers 5 R PU Month 36
Report describing the work performed in WP6, including the building of
prototype(s), system integration, functional testing and benchmarking
D 6.2 Draft report on risk assessment and contingency plan 6 R PU Month 18
D 6.3 Final report on risk assessment and contingency plan 6 R PU Month 36
D 7.1 Report on results from the demonstration/ case study 7 R PU Month 34
D 8.1 Project WEB site 8 O PU Month 3
Draft report on potentially competitive patents and a plan for patent
D 8.2 application(s) if required with exploitation agreements between the 8 R PU Month 18
partners
Final report on potentially competitive patents and a plan for patent
D 8.3 application(s) if required with exploitation agreements between the 8 R PU Month 36
partners
Production of support material for transfer of the knowledge to the
partners through case studies and a generic design guide
D 8.5 Report on training material and evaluation from the participants 8 R PU Month 36
D 9.1 Report on legal and societal aspects and implications of the project 9 R PU Month 36
Procedure for internal reporting and communication between partners in
the project
Table 1.3c: Work Package Description

Work Package No. WP 1 Start Date or Start Event Month 1
Work Package Title Scientific Understanding and Advancement of Operational Parameters
Activity Type RTD
Participant Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Person-months per Participant 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 8 2 2 2 2
Objectives
To create a detailed scientific understanding of key variables required for the development of new BioAlgaeSorb processes
within WPs 2 to 5.
Description of Work
Task 1.1 Physico-chemical Requirements for Optimal Microalgae Production

Task leader SU and participants NoBio, AEBIOM, BTA, Ingrepro, VAS, HCMR
The purpose of this task is to define parameters for the successful cultivation of microalgae at different SME AG member
locations dealing with a range of effluent types and different prevailing environmental conditions. The physiological
requirements for optimum microalgal growth will be reviewed with specific reference to commercially valuable species known
to be culturable on effluents (aqueous effluents and industrial flue gases). Microalgae cultivation systems and processes will
also be reviewed in detail to determine the most appropriate configurations for BioAlgaeSorb applications, focusing on the
technological approaches for microalgae production used by the participating SMEs (ie, tubular photobioreactors and shallow
raceways). The compositions of effluents produced at SME AG member sites will furthermore be analysed to best inform the
pre-treatment steps required for using these effluents as nutrient and CO2 sources for microalgae cultivation.
Task 1.2 Microalgae Harvesting Processes

Task leader SU and participants TI
This task will describe methods of microalgae harvesting with specific reference to costs, operability, recycling and
purification of water. Specifically, we will elucidate the main separations used for microalgae recovery and assess their
applicability for this project. The following unit operations will be covered: centrifugation, flocculation, flotation, sieving and
microfiltration. We will compare these well developed systems to a hybrid recovery technology (electro-flocculation) and to
floatation without using standard coagulation chemicals. These approaches will be assessed as to their feasibility for use on
a large scale, their ease and flexibility for integration into microalgae production systems, the cost of the processes in relation
to product value and their suitability to specific microalgae types and water composition.
27
Task 1.3 Microalgae Biomass Conversion Processes

Task leader UFL and participants SU, UDUR
Existing methods for refining and upgrading microalgae biomass will be examined in detail, with reference to applicable
technologies used for other types of biomass, in order to direct RTD on microalgae disruption and fractionation, chemical
conversion of microalgal oil fractions to biodiesel, and thermo-chemical conversion of intact or pre-extracted biomass to liquid
biofuel. The specific processes to be interrogated are: physical cell disruption (homogenisation, sonication); fractionation of
disruptates using micro-, ultra- and nano-filtration methods; extraction of microalgal pigments using mineral matrices;
biodiesel production from microalgal oil fractions via heterogeneous catalysis and enzymatic reactions; and pyrolytic
processes for the production of liquid biofuels from solid biomass.
The operating conditions for these processes will be examined in relation to likely BioAlgaeSorb process streams and
potential products, so as facilitate choice of recovery and upgrading operations and to identify critical variables for further
study.
Task 1.4 Critique of Modelling Approaches for Technical and Economic Evaluations
Task leader SU
Modelling is a critical component of the BioAlgaesorb project, providing a cost and time-efficient route to testing alternative
routes to the deployment of microalgae for effluent remediation. Prior to commencing the modelling work it is necessary to
perform an analysis of the state-of-the-art to ensure that i) work is not duplicated, ii) that the most appropriate modelling
approaches are deployed to the project.
This task will develop both critiques for the operational side of the processes (i.e., the biology-physics-engineering interface)
and also of the economic life cycle analysis that runs in parallel with it. The work will involve experts in both subject areas as
applied to the subject of deployment of microalgae as intermediaries in bioremediation and production of added value
products. Analysis will extend into allied fields, notably those associated with the use of other microbes (bacteria, fungi) in
similar arenas.
Deliverables
D 1.1 - Month 6 - Reference document on current technologies for microalgae mass cultivation and biorefinery approaches
suitable for BioAlgaeSorb applications
D 1.2 - Month 6 - Report reviewing existing modelling approaches suitable for technical and economic evaluation of
microalgae-based effluent remediation
Milestones
M 1 - Month 6 - Completed specification criteria for development of BioAlgaeSorb technologies

Work Package Title Optimization of Microalgae Cultivation on Effluents
Activity Type RTD
Person-months per Participant 0 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 28 12 0 60 0
Objectives
To develop processes for pre-treating and re-formulating aqueous and gaseous effluents as effective nutrient sources for
cultivated microalgae;
To select suitable microalgae species for mass cultivation on representative effluent sources;
To develop robust methods for cultivating the selected microalgae species on representative effluent sources;
To assess the technical feasibility of the developed processes for microalgae mass cultivation at SME locations.
Description of Work
Task 2.1 Effluent Characterization, Upstream Processing and Reformulation as Microalgae Nutrients
Task leader SU and participants NoBio, AEBIOM, BTA, Ingrepro, VAS, HCMR
Handling and pre-treatment of nutrient sources: Pre-treatment methods for different waste nutrient sources will be
investigated, focusing on effluents from biomass power generation, intensive pig production, intensive trout production
(freshwater finfish), intensive sea bream / sea bass production (marine finfish) and anaerobically digested food waste. Co-
28
products from pyrolysis will also be investigated as nutrient sources.
The influence of pre-oxidation by biological means will be investigated to remove organics. Microfiltration of digester fluids
and other nutrient rich waste waters will be investigated. Finally methods of nutrient blending will also be investigated to give
rapid balanced growth of the algae.
Treatment of recycled water: Having produced clean nutrient streams in concentrated form, the appropriate kinetics and
dosing to produce sterile streams will be investigated, including comparison of UV light, ozone and pasteurisation methods.
The microbial content will be assessed before and after treatment and the capital and operational costs of the developed
sterilisation methods calculated.
Medium standardisation, medium formulation and control: Knowing the compositions of the selected microalgae, work will
be carried out to formulate suitable nutrient mixes using the concentrated N and P sources and pre-treated gas.
Formulations containing suitable N and P ratios will be manufactured for evaluation with selected microalgae in Task 2.2.
The absorption of compounds from the gas phase will also be examined, including oxides of S and N, and prospects
assessed for blending flue gas and air. The costs of formulating these media will be calculated.
Task 2.2 Define Culture Conditions for Selected Microalgae Species Using Pre-treated Aqueous and Gaseous
Effluents
Task leader HCMR and participants SU
Effluent-tolerant microalgae species identified from WP1 will be cultured at laboratory scale using the nutrient formulations
and gas mixes developed in Task 2.1. This will include cultivation under different abiotic conditions (temperature, salinity,
light intensity, etc) to ensure that the finally selected organisms are suitable for the prevailing local operating conditions of the
SME AG members. Those microalgae species that are intolerant of the pre-treated effluent sources and/or varying abiotic
conditions will be excluded from further work and up to 4 species (including freshwater and marine representatives) carried
forward for process optimization.
Task 2.3 Define Bioreactor and Raceway Operating Conditions for Selected Microalgae Species, Effluent Sources and
Operating Locations
Task leader HCMR and participants NoBio, AEBIOM, BTA, Ingrepro, VAS, SU
Those microalgae selected from Task 2.2 will be cultured on larger scale in experimental tubular photobioreactors (PBRs)
and shallow raceways based on the microalgae system technologies of the participating SMEs (Varicon Aqua Solutions Ltd;
Ingrepro NV), in order to determine the most appropriate inoculation methods and delivery rates for recycled nutrients and
flue gases.
Nutrient management regimes will be developed for microalgae PBRs and raceways operated either independently or in
sequence (ie, inoculation of high density microalgae from closed PBR into open raceway). Trials will be carried out at
different partner locations and under different programmed environmental conditions representing the range of ambient
abiotic conditions experienced by SME AG members.
Task 2.4 Control of Nutrient Delivery and Optimisation of Transfers in Microalgae Cultivation Systems
Task leader TI and participants Ingrepro, VAS
Engineering processes will be devised for the controlled delivery of pre-treated aqueous and gaseous effluents into closed
tubular PBRs and open raceways, to ensure efficient utilisation by the microalgae and to minimise losses to the environment.
This will incorporate automated feedback in response to status of the microalgae population and to water chemistry
parameters. Pumping and gas transfer systems will also be developed to enable efficient mixing and transport of the selected
microalgae species within the cultivation systems, with minimal physical damage. This will include options for continuous or
batch harvesting of the microalgae.
Task 2.5 Modelling Approaches for Technical Evaluations

Task leader SU
Dynamic models will be constructed of each component part of the microalgae production system, building on information
obtained from Task 1.4 and Tasks 2.1 to 2.3 for the biological and physical processes involved. The purpose is to integrate
information from other components of WP 2 into a dynamic testable platform for subsequent system integration and industrial
validation activities (WP 6).
The computer models will make use of mechanistic descriptions of microalgal physiology to ensure that the description of the
biological behaviour takes appropriate account of changes in physical parameters including light, water turbidity, nutrient
types and concentrations, temperature and pH. These biological descriptions will be placed within descriptions of commercial
29
PBRs and raceways of different size, shape, dilution, illumination, temperature, nutrient influx etc., ie factors that affect the
ability of the microalgae to grow and remove nutrients. Combinations of different PBR and raceway configurations will be
tested using these models. Coupled with these descriptors will be models describing the fate of material harvested from the
reactors, especially with respect to the recycling of water and nutrients.
Both the biological and physical descriptors will be flexible, enabling the examination of different scenarios both with respect
to system configurations within a given geographic zone, and also between geographic zones. This is important given
significant differences across Europe with respect to light, water supply, nutrient availability, land and energy costs, etc.
Task 2.6 Prototype Development and Testing

Task leader SU, participants HCMR, TI, AEBIOM, BTA, VAS, Ingrepro
Based on the findings from Tasks 2.1 – 2.5, prototype microalgae production systems will be installed and operated at the
premises of SME AG members - for flue gas remediation at an AEBIOM member site; for aqueous effluent remediation at a
BTA member site. The performance of these prototypes will be assessed and tuned in relation to model parameters (Task
2.5); the prototypes will also be used for Demonstration purposes in WP 7.
Deliverables
D 2.1 - Month 18 - Report on the composition, formulation and costs of effluent-derived microalgae nutrient media and gases
D 2.2 - Month 18 - Report on the efficacy of pre-treated / reformulated microalgae effluents and gases for microalgae
cultivation - laboratory scale studies
D 2.3 - Month 24 - Report on the efficacy of pre-treated / reformulated microalgae effluents and gases for microalgae
cultivation - photobioreactor and raceway studies
D 2.4 - Month 18 - Report on engineering processes for the controlled delivery of microalgae nutrients and efficient mixing
and transport of microalgae within cultivation systems
D 2.5 - Month 24 - Report on the technical feasibility of the methods developed for effluent remediation and microalgae
biomass production at SME AG member locations, based on computer modeling
D 2.6 - Month 30 - Report on the performance of prototype microalgae cultivation units at SME AG member locations
Milestones
M 2 - Month 18 - Processes developed for utilisation of aqueous and gaseous effluents for microalgae cultivation, ready for
prototype development
M3 – Month 34 – Prototype BioAlgaeSorb microalgae production systems tested

Work Package Title Microalgae Harvesting Technologies
Activity Type RTD
Person-months per Participant 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 24 0 0 0 0
Objectives
To develop methods for harvesting the selected microalgae species with specific reference to costs and operability;
To develop primary separation strategies based upon a sound physical basis using properties of the organisms and
the process fluids;
To provide a basis for choosing the harvesting process for different microalgal products;
To investigate batch and continuous process operation (including in situ recovery).
Description of Work
Task 3.1 Colloidal Characterisation of Selected Microalgae to Facilitate Optimal Harvest Conditions
Task leader SU
The selected microalgae species will be characterised with respect to their physical properties including size, shape, density
and surface charge (zeta potential) as a function of culture age and nutrient status. The data obtained will be applied to
establish appropriate operating conditions within the subsequent tasks.
Task 3.2 Optimisation of Conventional Harvesting Technologies in the Context of Microalgae Culturing Systems
Task leader SU
Operating envelopes will be assessed for different harvesting methods assessed in relation to the physical properties of
30
process fluids and microalgae cells, and cultivation systems. This data will allow calculation of capital and operating costs of
the operations. The rheological and gross composition of concentrated materials and their drying characteristics will be
determined.
Cross-flow microfiltration of the selected microalgae species will be carried at pilot scale to establish filtration characteristics
during concentration; centrifugation methods will be tested at pilot scale using a disc-stack system; sieving methods (drum
filtration) will be tested using laboratory scale apparatus involving a series of stainless steel and plastic meshes in the range
25 micron 100micron.
The data obtained for each harvesting method will allow for optimal operating conditions, design and scale-up, together with
a comparison of capital and operating costs at full scale operation.
Task 3.3 Characterisation of Microalgae Concentrates and Their Preservation

Task leader SU
This task will characterise the physical and chemical composition of concentrated microalgae biomass and develop
processes for stabilising these concentrates in preparation for further downstream processing / valorisation. Different
preservation techniques will be compared, namely freezing, drying, freeze-drying and spray-drying. Gross biochemical
composition and product quality (highly unsaturated fatty acid composition; protein functionality) will be compared for the
different methods, including assessment of shelf life.
Task 3.4 Investigation of Hybrid Harvesting Technologies: Electro-Flocculation

Task leader SU
This task will investigate the utility of electro-flocculation for harvesting the selected microalgae species, to establish the most
appropriate operating conditions, and the limitations and potential of this harvesting approach. Based on laboratory-scale
experiments, estimates will be made of harvesting costs as a function of microalgae concentration and comparisons made
with traditional biomass recovery processes (section 3.2).
Task 3.5 Development and Assessment of a Novel Flotation Technique Without the Use of Deleterious Additives
Task leader SU
A novel flotation-based microalgae harvesting technique will be developed and evaluated, suitable for high value end
applications (eg, food and feed ingredients) where it is undesirable to use conventional metal-based flocculants. This work
will involve interaction with WP 2, to determine how the harvesting technique can be integrated into large scale microalgae
cultivation systems.
Pre-treatment (ozonation) conditions: The effects of ozone concentration and exposure duration on surface modification of
the selected microalgae species will be measured as a function of changes in surface chemistry (hydrophobicity) and surface
charge (zeta potential).
Flocculant selection: Flocculation properties of the ozone pre-treated microalgae will be investigated in the presence of
different flocculants (chitosan, and protein), including assessment of the interactions between different ozonation conditions
and flocculants.
Optimisation of flotation bubbles: Flotation experiments will be carried out at laboratory scale to identify the most efficient
gas bubble size for different microalgae species and operating conditions, using dissolved air micro-bubbles < 10-1,000 μm
(supersaturated water), fine bubbles (1-2 mm) and normal gas (2-10mm)
Reuse of process gases for microalgae floatation: The feasibility of incorporating process gases (including flue gases) into
the floatation processes developed above will be investigated, including measurements of gas bubble properties and
microalgae floatation efficiency for gases with different compositions. This work will include measurement of the mass
transfer of gases to and from the liquid phase.
Deliverables
D 3.1 - Month 9 - Report on the physical characteristics of the four microalgae species
D 3.2 - Month 12 - Report on optimal harvesting procedures using conventional technologies
D 3.3 - Month 18 - Report on physical and chemical properties of microalgae concentrates and their drying characteristics
D 3.4 - Month 24 - Report on the feasibility of novel microalgae harvesting processes: electro-flocculation and ozonated air
floatation
Milestones
31
M 4 - Month 24 - Processes developed for harvesting and stabilising microalgae biomass

Work Package Title Refinery and Upgrading Processes for Microalgae Biomass
Activity Type RTD
Objectives
To fractionate and convert harvested microalgae biomass to obtain high value products, utilising all the materials to obtain
chemicals, energy and recycled / cleaned process water. The focus will be on the production of valorised stable materials to
serve as feedstock and ingredients, e.g. highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFAs), proteins, carbohydrates and minerals
(silicates), leaving the remaining materials available for thermal transformation (WP5) and/or reuse via anaerobic
fermentation and digestion and combustion of methane.
Description of Work
Task 4.1 Disruption of Microalgae

Task leader SU, participants Sea Marconi
The harvested materials obtained in WP 3 will be used as raw materials for upgrading. Physical cell disruption has been
shown to allow far better extraction of valuable materials than by direct solvent extraction or pressing. This task will
investigate the best conditions of microalgae cell disruption (homogenization versus sonication) and will include investigation
of the possible pre-treatments and optimisation of environmental conditions to minimise power consumption and ease further
downstream processing.
Task 4.2 Physical Separation / Fractionation Schemes for Fractionation of Disruptates to Produce Stable Materials
Task leader SU
The microalgae disruptates from task 5.1 will be treated using a combination of MF/UF and NF filtration systems to
fractionate, wash and desalt the materials. In addition, specific absorption processes will be used to separate and refine
protein fractions based on charge and hydrophobicity. Finally, the fractions obtained will be stabilised by freezing and/or
drying. Four primary fractions will be produced: oils, soluble proteins, insoluble proteins and carbohydrates; further fractions
may also be obtained depending on origin of the disruptates, eg silica from diatoms. The quality of these fractions will
determine their value and as such the processing must be rapid and efficient. Chemical composition of the stabilised
fractions will be measured and specifications for the processes determined.
Task 4.3 Chemical Conversions

Task leader UDUR, participants Sea Marconi, VFT
The separated fractions produced in task 5.2 will be investigated for further upgrading to biofuels and for extraction of high
value pigments. The following techniques will be developed to achieve upgrading:
Task 4.3.1 Heterogeneous catalysis

A range of heterogeneous (different phase, usually meaning solid) catalysts will be employed as follows:
Decarboxylation and decarbonylation of fatty acids (for ―green‖ biodiesel production) will be carried out using
novel mixed metal oxide catalysts in batch and flow reactor systems. Nanosponge-templated oxide catalysts will
also be assessed for decarboxylation reactions.
Trans-esterification (for conventional biodiesel production) will be trialled using super-basic layered double
hydroxide materials intercalated with bases such as tert-butoxide. Using such catalysts will avoid the soap
formation often encountered when using the conventional caustic soda approach to trans-esterification.
Providing RTD support for pyrolysis process users, pillared clay and other catalysts will be investigated under batch
pyrolysis conditions to see if the high molecular weight oils characteristic of pyrolysis can be cracked to provide
lower carbon number compounds for fuel applications.
To facilitate high speed processing, the same catalysts will also be trialled, in conjunction with the SMEs, within flow
reactor systems and microwave heating systems for simultaneous extraction and upgrading.
Task 4.3.2 Enzymatic reactions

Using the nanoporous polymer technology from Sea Marconi, a variety of enzymatic routes will be trialled a) Trans-
32
catalysts are very good at turning two fatty acids into a long chain ketone.
Task 4.3.3 Fractionation of phycobiliproteins

Phycobiliproteins are another high value component of microalgae (used as colouring agents, dyes, and marker compounds)
which are present are very low concentrations. Research has shown that certain mineral matrices are extremely effective at
concentrating these compounds. Fractionation of phycobiliproteins will be tested in temperature gradient flow reactor
systems packed with various mineral substrates.
Deliverables
D 4.1 - Month 15 - Report on the optimal conditions for biomass disruption of four microalgae species
D 4.2 - Month 24 - Report on the production of stabilised, fractionated microalgal materials and their composition
D 4.3 - Month 15 - Report on transesterification and decarboxylation of model compounds using heterogeneous catalysts and
enzyme catalysts
D 4.4 - Month 24 - Report on pyrolysis of microalgal fraction using heterogeneous catalysts
D 4.5 - Month 30 - Report on transesterification and decarboxylation of microalgal fractions using heterogeneous catalysts
Milestones
M 5 - Month 24 - Primary separation processes developed for harvested microalgae biomass
M 6 - Month 30 - Chemical conversion processes developed for biofuel production from microalgae lipid fraction

Work Package Title Thermo-chemical Conversions of Microalgae Biomass
Activity Type RTD
Person-months per Participant 0.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 0 0 66
Objectives
Pyrolysis has been the subject of massive investigation in the last decades by the scientific community, due to its promising
efficiency and reliability for both production of chemicals and power. The consortium will benefit of this background because
extensive know-how in pyrolysis reactor design has been gained. The specific objectives of WP 5 are:
To design and test a pyrolysis reactor to process microalgae
To study the feasibility of bio-oil production from four species of microalgae
To characterize the bio-oils with respect to fossil fuels
To identify critical issues for long-term performance analysis
Description of Work
Task 5.1 Design and Construction of a Laboratory Scale Pyrolysis Reactor

Task leader UFL, participants Sea Marconi
The purpose of this task is to build a working fast pyrolysis reactor to carry out test on microalgae biomass at a lab scale. A
preliminary study of the pilot reactor (preliminary design) will be carried out supporting RTD work and in collaboration with
SEA, and a detailed description developed. Later on, a final design will be released and therefore realized. UFL will be
charged, along with SEA, to set the design specifications of the lab-scale plant, its size being in the order of 10 kg/h. Once
built, the pilot reactor will be instrumented and installed in UFL facility. The pilot unit will only be used for the present project:
first tests will be carried out with fresh water strains and only afterwards with seawater microorganisms, as the use of algae
cultivated in salt water will most likely create problems and damages to the reactor, which is therefore a consumable.
Nevertheless, It will provide useful indications and information for future work on this area. Moreover, we expect to be able to
produce sufficient oil for subsequent testing (WP 5.5).
Reactor design will be carried out on the basis of the feedstock characteristics, desired flow rate and operating conditions
(residence time of vapour and solid phase, maximum temperature achieved). Generally, it can be assumed that the standard
particle size for flash pyrolysis of biomass feedstock is in the order of few millimetres; microalgae, whose size is at least
around 2 orders of magnitude smaller, need a specific attention in the design of the reactor in order to overcame the
peculiarity of this feedstock, i.e. salt and water content, particle dimension, etc. Moreover, the reactor will have to be tested
with several strains of microalgae, harvested from both fresh and salt water. All these issues will be addressed in this task.
33
Task 5.2 Installation, System Set-up and Testing

Task leader UFL
The system will be assembled, installed and commissioned at the UFL premises. Once set-up, the reactor will be fed with the
four microalgae strains samples, provided by the consortium members. A study of the process parameters (i.e. operating
temperature, pressure, inert flow rate, vapour residence time, etc) will be carried out, leading to the identification of the most
promising combination for each of the strain.
Task 5.3 Chemico-Physical Characterisation of Products

Task leader UFL
The oil product properties will be investigated, in order to identify the better strategy for its use in power and heat production.
The analysis will be based on the existing standard and literature on the subject of pyrolysis oil characterization: the
produced pyrolysis oil will therefore be analyzed according to this standards. The most critical parameters, in view of
pyrolysis oil use in energy generation technologies, are: composition, viscosity, acidity, stability, carbon residue. The oil
physical and chemical characteristics will also be evaluated versus transport fuels.
Task 5.4 Preliminary Tests for Heat and Power Production

Task leader UFL, participants NoBio, AEBIOM, Sea Marconi
The produced bio-oil, if a sufficient amount will be available, will be tested in a modified prime movers, i.e. a microturbine or a
small diesel engine, in order to verify its characteristic as a substitute for fossil fuel replacement. The test will be carried out in
our facility. Recommendations for long-term operation, if possible, will also be given.
Deliverables
D 5.1 - Month 6 - Description of the design of the pilot reactor
D 5.2 - Month 12 - Description of the test program of the pyrolysis unit
D 5.3 - Month 30 - Report on the result of bio-oil production and analysis
D 5.4 - Month 36 - Report on the result of bio-oil in prime movers
Milestones
M 7 - Month 24 - Pilot reactor ready for testing
M 8 - Month 30 - First repeatable production of bio-oil (few litres)

Work Package Title System Integration and Industrial Validation
Activity Type RTD
Person-months per Participant 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 8 9 4 18 4
Objectives
Integration of the sub-processes produced in Work Packages 2, 3, 4 and 5 in order to obtain a fully functional microalgae-
based effluent treatment system. Validation of the BioAlgaeSorb technology by demonstration of the fully integrated
technology against the Objectives.
Description of Work
Task 6.1 System Integration

Close monitoring of progress in the different RTD WorkPackages in order to ensure coordination and integration of the
technical activities and solutions in the production process from algae to bio-energy. Special focus on the interface between
the different WorkPackages, especially the interface between WP 2 Microalgae Cultivation, WP3 Microalgae harvesting
techologies and WP4 Refinary and Upgrading Process for microalgae Biomass. Further close focus in interface between
WP4 Refinary and upgrading and WP5 Thermo-Chemica Conversion.
Task leader TI and assisted by all RTD partners
Task 6.2 Industrial Validation / Benchmarking

Algae-to-bioenergy technologies are still pre-commercial and are in need for significant R&D to increase productivity, reduce
costs and need to find other product market combination that gives a synergetic effect.AlgaeBioSorb will combine several
technologies boosting the financial viability and will make this form of alternative energy and cleaning successful.Industrial
34
validation/benchmarking will focus on cost effectiveness and life cycle assessment and will closely follow ebaluate every step
in the algae to bio-energy process. This task does include benhmarking the resuts (cost and technology) with competitive
technologies and energy sources.
Task leader TI assisted by RTD partners.
Task 6.3 Modelling Approaches for Economic Evaluations

Every process has a cost. Often however the whole life cycle costs are ignored. This project will examine the use of a
product stream currently considered as a waste with an expense for disposal (i.e. nutrient-rich waste waters) as a feed for the
growth of microalgae. To appreciate the true life cycle cost of the process requires the coupling of a description of the
process itself with that of an economic model that takes account not only the economics of running the new processes (use
of waste waters to support microalgal growth for production of energy and chemicals) but also of not having to otherwise
handle the waste waters.
This work package will couple the model developed and tested in WP2.5 with an economic costing of the processes,
including the building and operation (whole life cycle) of the processing plant. The coupled model will be run under different
physical forcings (e.g., meteorological data, waste water stream composition) and also under different economic scenarios
(cost of fertilizers, of land, energy, and of the engineering plant).
From this analysis will emerge data that will indicate under which conditions the operation of the whole system will be cost
negative, positive, or neutral. Hence this work package will inform the commercial sector on where greatest leverage is to be
gained in development of new more cost effective solutions.
Task leader SU and participants all
Task 6.4 Risk Assessment and Contingency Management

Close monitoring of progress in the different RTD WorkPackages enabling assessment of the progress of both the WP and
its inter-relationship with the entire project. Inter-relationships between individual and particularly high-risk work packages
and tasks will be evaluated and the likely tolerance band for under-delivery on each contributing task and individual work
package assessed. Initiating corrective actions if required reassessing the cumulative effect of the changes on the predicted
tolerance band of the major element deliverable and confirm that this is acceptable in relation to the overall project
objectives. As a result of this analysis a corrective action plan will be constructed to re-iterate some of the tasks with changes
to their content based on the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) that are likely to produce an improved deliverable
closer to the quantified target. The improved deliverable will then be re-integrated into the milestone assessment.
Task leader TI assisted by all participants.
Deliverables
D 6.1 - Month 30 - Report describing the work performed in WP6, including the building of prototype(s), system integration,
functional testing and benchmarking
D 6.2 - Month 18 - Draft report on risk assessment and contingency plan
D 6.3 - Month 36 - Final report on risk assessment and contingency plan
Milestones:
None

Work Package Title Demonstration Activities
Activity Type DEM
Objectives
Demonstration of the BioAlgaSorb technologies to SME AG members. To demonstrate the developed technology in case
studies, where all the RTD activities are combined and tested. The demonstration will include technology deveoped in 2
Microalgae Cultivation, WP3 Microalgae harvesting techologies, WP4 Refinary and Upgrading Process for microalgae
Biomass and WP5 Thermo-Chemica Conversion and be coordinated with the testing activitues in the actual WPs..
Description of Work
SME AGs will arrange demonstrations to their members as well as include the broader audience. The participating SMEs will
further extend the audience for demonstration activities via their contact networks and existing custumer base. The
35
demonstration will include the business of prototype equipment and processes for microalgae biomass production,
harvesting, upgrading and thermo-chemical conversion that have been developed in the preceding WPs and will be
coordinated with the running of lab and fulls scale tests of the different systems.
Task 7.1 Demonstrations to SME Staff

Demonstration as specied to the SME participants. The SME participants are furher encouraged to include their contact
netgworks and existing customer base.
Task leader TI assisted by other RTD partners
Task 7.2 Demonstrations to IAG Staff

Demonstrations as specified to the SME-AG participants and their member companies. This task will especially be
coordinated with AEBIOM who will further include eccourage the participation via their 33 national member organisations to
their members.
Task leader TI assisted by other RTD partners
Deliverables
D 7.1 - Month 34 - Report on results from the demonstration/ case study
Milestones:
None

Work Package Title Innovation Related Activities / Training
Activity Type OTHER
Person-months per Participant 5 3 2 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Objectives
Formulate/compile project results into a protectable form, including patents and develop an Exploitation Strategy; a
Consortium Agreement signed between the partners and protection of the Intellectual Property Rights arising from the results
of the BioAlgaeSorb project. Disseminate knowledge, experience and benefits from the pilot system to expert groups, system
providers, SME-AGs and SME end-users as well as user communities, industrial contact networks, trade press, regional
clusters and chambers of commerce networks at conferences, workshops, exhibitions to potential user communities such as
industrial contact networks and trade press, regional clusters, chambers of commerce networks, Demonstrate and present
the concept at trade or sector specific events or exhibitions.
Description of Work
The SME-AGs will play a major role in the dissemination and exploration activities and a primary target for the activities will
be their members across Europe. The dissemination channels will be input to publications, promotion and demo CDs, leaflets
and other printed material, web based activity, online courses and exhibitions, conferences, seminars, especially towards
end-user communities and associations in the relevant industrial sectors and especially the bio-energy sector. The success
depends on the industry sector driving the system itself and that the system specifically targets the needs of the ME
companies in the relevant sectors..
Task 8.1 Protection of IPR

Task leader AEBIOM and participants SME-AGs and SMEs
Carry out patent searches to assess the viability of a patent application. Prepare patent applications and submit through
patent agent. Create a preliminary DUP at mid-term and a final version by final term. IPR ownership and exploitation
agreements within the partnership and outside of the partnership in the form of potential licensee agreements will be created.
Task 8.2 Uptake of Results by Proposers

Task leader NoBio and participants SME-AGs and SMEs
The RTDs must assure that all the knowledge and results developed in the project are transferred to the SME-AGs and
SMEs. The SME-AGs should be able to further transfer the results to their members and to promote the change.
Task 8.3 Dissemination of Knowledge / Promotion of Knowledge

36
With focus on project results and implications for the relevant industrial sectors, especially the bio-energy sector. Produce
publications, CDROMs, web based activity and exhibitions, especially towards end-user communities & associations and the
especially on the aquaculture and bio-energy sector in northern and southern parts of Europe. Further to perform printing and
distribution of the information to be disseminated. AEBIOM assisted by NoBio and BTA will be the highest responsible for the
content of information to be disseminated and controlling that the content is in accordance to protection schemes.
Task 8.4 Training

Task leader AEBIOM and participants SME-AGs and SMEs
Training the SME-AG staff. SMEs, execute training of SME- AGs staff outside the consortium in the results from the project.
This initial role in the training activities in the project also involves testing and verification of educational and course material
made by the RTDs for training purposes. Training of SMEs including the SME-AG members. Training of SME members, and
secondly other SMEs outside their membership in the knowledge, procedures and technology developed for quick absorption
and exploitation of the project results for them to further transfer the knowledge to a wider audience. Training the SME
customer supply chain in the commercial aspects of the BioAlgaeSorb project results. Emphasis will be placed on the
development and manufacture of system components and the integration skills required to realise and exploit the results from
the BioAlgaeSorb project.
Deliverables
D 8.1 - Month 3 (and update every 3 months) - Project WEB site
D 8.2 - Month 18 - Draft report on potentially competitive patents and a plan for patent application(s) if required with
exploitation agreements between the partners
D 8.3 - Month 36 - Final report on potentially competitive patents and a plan for patent application(s) if required with
exploitation agreements between the partners
D 8.4 - Month 30 - Production of support material for transfer of the knowledge to the partners through case studies and a
generic design guide
D 8.5 - Month 36 - Report on training material and evaluation from the participants
Milestones:
None

Work Package Title Consortium Management
Activity Type MGT
Person-months per Participant 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Objectives
To ensure that there is an effective co-ordination of knowledge, management related activities, innovation related activities,
legal aspects and technical activities at a consortium level. As well as ensuring adequate managing of time, resource
allocation at a consortium level, facilities, representatives at meetings, general duties and coordination of the work packages.
Description of Work
Co-ordination between the EC and project consortium ensuring that all milestones, reports, and project financial
administration is prepared in accordance with the contractual requirements. Integration of effort between RTD performers
and partners. Monitoring that each of the partners and the RTD performers use their own resources effectively through
internal project management. Development of a technology implementation plan to aid the dissemination and exploitation
process. Prepare Dissemination and Utilization plan (DUP).
Task 9.1 Consortium Management

Task leader NoBio and participants all partners
Legal, contractual, ethical, financial & administrative management of the consortium & managing the Consortium Agreement.
Task 9.2 Technical Management

Task leader NoBio and participants RTDs
Co-ordination of technical activities at a consortium level.
37
Task 9.3 IRA Management

Task leader AEBIOM
Co-ordination of knowledge management and innovation related activities.
Task 9.4 Organise meetings

Task leader NoBio and participants all partners
Organization of the project management and exploitation issue meetings.
Deliverables
D 9.1 - Month 36 - Report on legal and societal aspects and implications of the project
D 9.2 - Month 36 - Procedure for internal reporting and communication between partners in the project
Milestones:
None
38
Table 1.3d: Summary of Staff Effort

The number of person months over the duration of the planned work for each participant and work package. The work package leader is indicated by a bold figure.
Partner Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part. Part.
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Total Total Total All
Sea IAG SMTP RTDP Partners
Short Name NoBio AEBIOM BTA Ingrepro VAS VFT SU TI UDUR HCMR UFL
Marconi
Research & Innovation
1.50 1.50 1.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 80.00 35.00 36.00 80.00 72.00 4.50 12.00 303.00 319.50
Activities - Total
WP 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 8.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 16.00 19.50
WP 2 0 0 0.50 0 1.00 1.00 0 28.00 12.00 0 60.00 0 0.50 2.00 100.00 102.50
WP 3 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 24.00 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 24.00 26.00
WP 4 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 12.00 0 30.00 0 0 0 2.00 42.00 44.00
WP 5 0.50 0.50 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 12.00 0 0 66.00 1.00 2.00 78.00 81.00
WP 6 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 8.00 9.00 4.00 18.00 4.00 1.50 2.00 43.00 46.50
Demonstration
1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 8.00 14.00 25.00
Activities - Total
WP 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 8.00 14.00 25.00
Other Activities - Total 5.00 3.00 2.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 0 0 0 0 0 10.00 26.00 0 36.00
WP 8 5.00 3.00 2.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 0 0 0 0 0 10.00 26.00 0 36.00
Management Activities - Total 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 11.00 12.00 1.00 24.00
WP 9 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 11.00 12.00 1.00 24.00
TOTAL ACTIVITIES 12.50 8.50 7.50 14.50 14.50 14.50 14.50 83.20 38.20 38.20 84.20 74.20 28.50 58.00 318.00 404.50
39
Table 1.3e: List of Milestones

Milest. WP(s) Expected
Milestone Description Means of Verification
No. Involv. Date
Technical manager plus
Completed specification criteria for development of partners in WPs 2-5 to verify
M1 1 Month 6
BioAlgaeSorb technologies the suitability of the
specification criteria.
Technical manager, together
Processes developed for utilisation of aqueous and with partners 3, 5 and 6 to
M2 gaseous effluents for microalgae cultivation, ready for 2 Month 18 verify the functionality of the
prototype development developed processes and
prototype design
Prototype BioAlgaeSorb microalgae production with partners 3, 5 and 6 to
M3 2 Month 34
systems tested verify the functionality of the
tested prototype
with partners 5 and 6 to verify
Processes developed for harvesting and stabilising
M4 3 Month 24 the quality of the harvested
microalgae biomass
products and feasibility of
implementation
Primary separation processes developed for harvested
M5 4 Month 24 the quality of the separated
microalgae biomass
fractions and feasibility of
process implementation.
Chemical conversion processes developed for biofuel
M6 4 Month 30 quality of the upgraded lipids
production from microalgae lipid fraction
and feasibility of process
implementation
with partners 1, 2, 4 and 7 to
M7 Pilot reactor ready for testing 5 Month 24 verify the operating
performance of the pilot
reactor
with partners 1, 2, 4 and 7 to
M8 First repeatable production of bio-oil (few litres) 5 Month 30
verify the production and
quality of the produced bio-oil
40
B1.4.4: Graphical Presentation of Work Packages
41
Section B2: Implementation – Quality and Efficiency of the

Implementation and the Management
B2.1: Quality of the Consortium as a Whole
B2.1.1: Management structure and procedures
Description of Project Management Structure and Procedures

We have set up a management structure that will include the competence and resources needed to effectively manage the
project. The management structure proposed will be able to handle the general project management, the technological
management and the management of knowledge and IPR through competent, experienced persons with clear roles and a well-
defined set of rules to follow in their work. We have focused particularly on making a simple efficient management structure that
is easily understood and accepted by all partners. Our project management structure is closely linked to the work to be done
and the requirements for reporting and following up the project. We have tried to keep the management structure as slim as
possible both to keep cost down and to economise by the partners‘ time. By a simple efficient management, we
will reduce the time to reach a decision and try to keep the need for meetings a reasonable level. We will run the project by
a simple set of rules based on good information exchange, discussions and if needed simple voting to decide on a case.
Management board Decision, strategy, conflict,

progress, control level. Decisions
one partner one vote
Consortium Technical IPR and Subcommittees Operational

Management Management Knowledge mgm level Risk mgm on
Management consortium,
NoBio Sea Marconi AEBIOM Monitoring of RTD activity,
dissemination and exploitation
WP WP WP WP Project activity level

leaders leaders leaders leaders RTD, training, demonstration,
mgm activities
(WP9) (WP 1) (WP 2- 6) (WP 7-8)
Management Board and its Functions

The Management Board is comprised of representatives from each proposer and will control the project. The board will be the
top-level management body of the project responsible for the strategic decisions, follow up of progress, initiating corrections
and resolving conflicts. The functions of the board will be in accordance with the contractual obligations towards the EC and the
coordinator will have the full responsibilities towards the EC as coordinator. The following areas will especially be the focus for
the Management Board:
General management progress and quality
Technological and scientific progress and results
The management of knowledge, of intellectual property and of other innovation-related activities
The monitoring of these activities will be based on reports and communication with the subcommittees, i.e. the Consortium
Management, Technical Management and IPR/Dissemination/Exploitation committees respectively. These three subcommittees
will provide short reports to the Management Board meetings and especially focus on progress, deviations and corrective
actions taken or suggested.
The Management Board will meet at least every 6 months. The Management Board meetings will involve formal presentations
from each WP or task by the RTD partners actively working on the tasks. The board will pay particular attention to the
subcontracted activities performed by the RTDs both monitoring value for money and technical progress. Representatives from
42
the RTDs performing the work are required at the board meetings to report their subcontracted work by technical personnel.
The board will suggest corrections or changes to WPs and tasks based on the reports and presentations.
As the 36 month project period is divided into two reporting periods of 18 months, the Reporting Period one (RP1) meeting at
month 18 and Reporting Period two/Final (RP2/Final) meeting at month 36 will also specially focus on the formal reporting to
the European Commission. The scientific and/or financial officer in the EC shall be invited. Accordingly at the Management
Board meetings at month 18 (RP1) and the project will be assessed against the milestones and deliverables listed in the Work
Programme. At the Management Board meeting at month 36 (RP2/Final), the board will assess all deliverables and reports with
particular focus on the reports outlining post project work on exploitation and use of the results.
The Management Board will take an active role in suggesting strategic changes and corrections to the projects if needed to fulfil
the overall goals. This implies that the board will see to amend the Description of Work if needed. The board will closely follow
risks and suggest how to cope with risks according to the risk management plan.
Running the Project - Operational Management

The managers of the different Sub-Committees, i.e. the consortium manager, the technical manager and the IPR/knowledge
manager will perform the operational management of the project. The managers of the different Management Board Sub-
Committees will have clearly defined roles and they will report to the management board.
Management Board
Role and responsibility
Sub Committee
Headed by Arnold Kyrre Martinsen from NoBio. Responsible for day to day management of the
Consortium BioAlgaeSorb project including communication with all partners and representing the point of
Management communication between the consortium members and the EU Commission. Responsible for
organizing submitting the delivery reports to the EU as well as the reports to be submitted at the end
for reporting period 1 and 2.
Headed by Carlo Roggero from Sea Marconi. Responsible for the monitoring of the scientific and
technical progress of the activity performed by the RTD performers in order to monitor compliance
Technical
with project objectives, industrial need and ensure ―value for money‖ for the RTD and
Management Demonstration activity. Mr. Roggero will confer with and be assisted by personnel from other
SMW-AGs and core group SMEs.
Headed by Jean-Marc Jossart from AEBIOM. Responsible for all innovation related activities,
IPR/Knowledge including dissemination, exploitation, protection of foreground. Responsible for preparing and
Management updating ―Plan for Use and Dissemonation‖. Will confer with and be assisted especially by
NoBio and BTA and will also confer with core group SMEs
Management Capability of Co-ordinator

Norsk Bioenergiforening (NoBio) will take on the role as Coordinator for BioAlgaeSorb project and will be responsible for
ensuring that the work programme is kept to schedule and that the project meets the interests of the partners. NoBio is a
member association for enterprises in the bioenergy sector and work actively to promote production and use of bio-energy in
Norway. The main activities of NoBio include promoting bio-energy, information activity, alliance and networking and support of
members. NoBio is a very active member of the European Biomass Association (AEBIOM). NoBio has already demonstrated
the active role by coordinating and managing to assemble the European Bio-energy sector in this project.
Mr. Arnold Kyrre Martinsen, who is the managing director of NoBio will take on the responsibility as Consortium Manager. He
was the Managing Director in NoBio from 1986 to 2000. Martinsen has a broad experience and knowledge in the bio-energy
field. He has studied Microbiology and Biochemistry at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, where his main interest
was anaerobic digestion and biogas. Based on his experience, he will be very competent for the role as Consortium Manager,
ensuring that the work programme is kept to schedule and that the project meets the project objectives. He will act as the
administrative interface with the Commission.
Mr. Martinsen will be assisted by Mr. Cato Kjolstad. Mr.Kjolstad is the Managing Director in the Norwegian Bioenergy
Association (NoBio). This is a position he has held since 2006. He holds an Master of Science in Business and Economics and
has been working with lobbying and industrial policy for many years. Before coming to NoBio he worked as a business
consultant and managing Director for a business and industry organisation
43
NioBio will in the role as coordinator focus on the financial, legal, contractual and administrative aspects of the project to ensure
efficient and professional consortium management in accordance with the EC contract obligations. As coordinator, NoBio will
be responsible for:
Communications between the consortium and the consortium and the EC

Providing all deliverables and reports in required formats to EC on time
The overall legal, contractual, ethical, financial and administrative management of the consortium;
Preparing, updating and managing the consortium agreement between the participants;
Resolution of any administrative or contractual issues within the partnership and with the Commission;
Organisation of Project Management and Exploitation Board meetings;
Take care of the promotion of gender equality in the project;
Collation of all the cost statements & obtaining audit certificates by each of the participants;
Coordinating payments and the distribution of money;
Co-ordination at consortium level of participant contractual obligations and collective responsibilities;
The Coordinator will endeavour to maintain team motivation, encourage creativity amongst the project team to ensure that all
parties employ sound problem solving techniques, and to ensure that corrective actions are taken as necessary.
Project Technical Management

Mr. Carlo Roggero from Sea Marconi will be the Project Technical Manager. He is an experienced manager and has experience
from product development and Research and Development Projects in this sector. Mr. Roggero will head the Technical
Management Sub Committee and he will, on behalf of the SME-AG and SMEs take responsibility for ensuring that the technical
work and deliverables are kept to schedule, within budget and that the project meets its technical objectives. He will work in
close cooperation with the Work Package leaders and they will together form a team with high competence to be able to
monitor the day-to-day work in the project. The results of the work of all partners will be monitored at monthly intervals ensuring
that the project is progressing according to work program. Mr.Roggero will particularly keep close contact with the RTD partners
performing the subcontracted work.
In the event of a problems or unexpected deviations in a work package, the technical manger will flag the issue to the
coordinator and if needed, take it to the management board. The board will determine the appropriate course of action such as
further iterations of the development loop, adoption of alternate technologies or finding alternative development routes. The
responsibilities of the technical manager include both the management of the technical progress towards the objectives of the
project and the exchange of results and knowledge between the partners. In addition, the technical manager is expected to
enable cross-fertilisation of ideas and data flow needed to support concurrent tasks.
Management of Knowledge, IPR and Dissemination Activities

According the principles of the Research for SME Associations, the knowledge arising from work carried out under the project is
the joint property of NoBio, AEBIOM, BTAand the SME-core group. The protection and management of the knowledge, IPR
dissemination and exploitation activity has been assigned to the SME Association partner AEBIOM who will take on the
responsibility of securing any IPR generated, as well as preparing and updating the dissemination and exploitation plan.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jossart has agreed to take on the responsibility as IPR/knowledge management and will head the
IPR/Knowledge Management Sub-Committee. The RTDs are expressly prevented from owning any of the resulting IPR from
the project.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jossart, is agronomist (university UCL, Belgium, 1989) and Secretary General of AEBIOM. He has a special
expertise in agriculture, bioenergy systems, liquid biofuels. In total he participated in more than 10 European or national
projects in the field of biomass, and several of them as coordinator. He will be assisted by Mrs Edita Vagonyte, also working av
AEBIOM. She is specialised in EU public policies (Institute of Political Studies, Strasbourg, 2005) and European Affairs
Manager for AEBIOM. She is European Affairs Manager for AEBIOM also responsible for communication activities such as
writing AEBIOM newsletter, editing/writing AEBIOM yearly journal ―Biomass News‖ etc.
The dissemination activities will commence during the first year of product development and will begin with internal
presentations disseminated by NoBio, AEBIOM and BTA. Further detailed description of knowledge, IPR and dissemination
management is described in Section 3.2 of this proposal.
44
Decision Making Mechanisms and the Responsibilities of Each Individual Partner

In principle, major decisions of strategic importance shall be done at the management board level. All decisions that are
controversial and/or disagreed upon among partners shall be brought up to the management board level. The management
board shall hear all partners, discuss alternative solutions and try to come to an agreement. Primarily, decisions should be by
consensus, If discussions do not lead to an agreement and consensus, the case is decided by simple voting. The SMEs/SME
Associations have one vote each. RTD participants will be present with status as observer and with right to speak. However,
the RTD performers do not carry a vote. Where a majority decision cannot be reached, external third party arbitration may be
used and the RTDs may give advice, if asked. Based on arbitration and/or RTD advice, new voting between SME IAG/SME
participants where the rule of majority does apply.
Accordingly, the decisions strategy in the management board does follow this step-wise procedure:
1. Discussion with objective of a consensus decision
2. If not – voting between SME IAG/SME partners (one partner – one vote) and decision by simple role of majority
3. If no decision possible – arbitration or RTD advice
4. Based on 3 – new discussion and voting between SME IAG/SME partners (one partner – one vote) and decision by
simple role of majority
No decisions or voting can overrule the EC contract and/or the consortium agreement.
Handling of IPR matters follows the above decision process. However, fair agreements among the partners should take into
considerations each partners contribution to the project, their background knowledge and their interest in their specific markets.
If an urgent solution to a problem is required, the management board may meet for a teleconference to discuss and solve the
problem using the above rules.
In the day-to-day work, decisions are to be made at the appropriate practical level. The coordinator, the technical managers or
the IPR/exploitation mangers should, however be informed on decisions taken by WP- task leaders of the respective fields.
Decisions taken at this level may be brought up to the management board and overruled.
It is the particular responsibilities of each partner and the three managers to act and manage in ways that creates a positive and
open atmosphere in the project and to resolve potential controversies as early as possible.
Conflict Resolution
Conflict Prevention Techniques will be used to avoid problems in decision-making, but should any conflict issues arise between
parties then they will be submitted to the Coordinator for mediation and resolution. Resolution techniques employed by the
Coordinator and based on a fact-finding exercise to investigate the circumstances of the issues and provide the conflicting
parties with an objective report describing the facts, as determined by the Coordinator. Based on that report the parties will be
asked to decide whether a dispute does exist and take steps to resolve it. An assessment will involve detailed scrutiny of the
issues through individual interviews and group processes to develop a composite picture of conflict. All disputes arising in
connection with this project, which cannot be settled within the Management Board, shall be finally settled by arbitration under
the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators to be appointed
under the terms of those Rules. In any arbitration in which there are three or more arbitrators, the Chairman shall be of juridical
education. The award of the Arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Contractors concerned. Location of arbitration shall
be agreed between the Participants concerned.
Communication Strategy
The communication strategy is closely related to the decision-making and we believe that a proper communication strategy is
important in avoiding conflicts and misunderstandings during the project. We will try to keep a balanced match between
physical meetings where partners can meet face to face, teleconferencing and mail. It is important that the partners meet face
to face to establish personal relationships among the partners. At the same time we realise that physical meetings is expensive
and time consuming. We will therefore use teleconferencing supplied by a simple tool (such as Go to meeting/Skype) for
sharing important information on all participants‘ screens. We have good experience with this from other
projects. We will implement the communication strategy with plans that ensures that all partners are updated and
engaged at regular interval through the project. The communication directly related to the work programme progress will be
regular, but controlled as needed by the involved partners. The plans for communications will be:
Information exchange at management board level as described above every 6 months. Including a brief status report
sent to all partners in advance of the meeting.
Every 3 months the coordinator, technical and exploitation manager will review progress based on reports from the WP
leaders and follow up work according to plan.
45
The three managers and WP leaders will communicate regularly, but at least every four weeks the mangers will phone
and or mail all partners to update them on progress and get a short status. We believe this is important to keep
everybody involved and dedicated to the project. It will also be important as problems, need for small corrections and
matters for discussion can be registered and dealt with as early as possible.
Risk Management
The proposed project has been planned and set up to minimise risk. By organising the WP so that the results from the first WP
will be a scientifically sound platform for further work and by building in corrective measures and possibilities for alternatives in
the following WPs, we will secure smooth progress of the project. The close follow up by the managers will also make it
possible to take action early and minimise risk. This includes also risks on cooperation and possible diverging interest that my
come up in the project. We have set up a detailed plan for possible risks we see (table 1.4.1). Each risk are categorised in their
consequences for the project, probability of the risk, how difficult it may be to find an alternative solution, preventive action
taken in the planning and probable solutions to the problem.
B2.1.2: Description of the Consortium
Table 2.1: Profile of Each Participant
Name Norwegian Bioenergy Association (NoBio)

Participant No. 1 Organisation Type AC SME-AG Country Norway
Business Area:
NoBio, the Norwegian Bioenergy Association, is an independent association whose goal is to promote a rational utilization of
bioenergy in Norway. Since it was founded in 1985 it has worked to increase the use of bioenergy in exciting markets and
introduce it in new sectors. NoBio has approximately 350 members of which 200 are companies of different sizes and 150
individual members. The members represent a broad range of enterprises producing and providing bioenergy, equipment
and machinery for producing and converting biofuels, consultants and scientists. NoBio also have members from
environmental and energy related organizations, and politicians with special interest of energy and environmental issues.
NoBio also operate in a very useful International network, cooperating with the other Scandinavian bioenergy associations
(SVEBIO, FINBIO and DANBIO) and other European bioenergy associations through the membership in AEBIOM.
Role in the Project:

NoBio will be the project co-ordinator and therefore lead WP9, consortium management, especially legal, contractual, ethical,
financial & administrative management of the consortium & Managing the Consortium Agreement. NoBio willl also be
responsible for set up the meetings and prepare the agenda and documents for the meetings. SNS will also communicate
between the consortium and the EC. In addition NoBio will assist AEBIOM and the other Associations with WP7 Innovation
related activities.
Expected benefits:
This kind of project is very much in line with the purpose of the Norwegian Bioenergy Association. NoBio expect
BioAlgaeSorb project to contribute to increase use of bio-energy through development new and cost effective technologies
using sustaibable energy sources.
Principal Research Personnel:

Mr Arnold Kyrre Martinsen is a Senior Adviser at NoBio and he acts as the main coordinator of BioAlgaeSorb. He was the
Managing Director at NoBio from 1986 to 2000, and has a broad experience and knowledge in the bioenergy field. Martinsen
has studied Microbiology and Biochemistry at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, where his main interest was
anaerobic digestion and biogas. His main task in NoBio is to maintain and develop the international network, distribute
information and arrange conferences, and meetings.
Mr Cato Kjølstad is the Managing Director at NoBio since 2006. He holds a Master of Science in Business and Economics
and has been working with lobbying and industrial policy for many years. Before coming to NoBio he worked as a business
46
Name European Biomass Association (AEBIOM)

Participant No. 2 Organisation Type European SME-AG Country European
Business Area:
The European Biomass Association, AEBIOM, is a non-profit Brussels based international organisation (under Belgian law)
founded in 1990 whose aim is to promote the sustainable development of the bioenergy sector in the EU. It is a network of 33
national biomass associations, and as each national association has its own members AEBIOM currently represents a
network of more than 4000 companies, organisations or individuals. It should be noted that AEBIOM covers Europe and is
not restricted to EU-27. Starting from 2007 AEBIOM is also open to direct membership of companies as associated
members. So far, AEBIOM has more than 70 associate members - companies working in various bioenergy sectors.
AEBIOM activities cover networking among its members, lobbying European institutions, communication activities,
information dissemination and event organisation. AEBIOM also manages various European projects.

AEBIOM use their key position as an European SME-AG association to disseminate project results as widely as possible.
AEBIOM will play a key role and lead the Innovation Related activities including training (WP7), especially by training the
SME-AG staff, in addition to. SMEs, execute training of SME- AGs staff outside the consortium. AEBIOM will also make sure
that the voice of their members are heard in the project and contribute with advices.
Expected benefits:
AEBIOM will assist their members in getting hold of new knowledge and technology that will increase their efficiency and
competition. AEBIOM will distribute the project results through newsletters, WEB- sites, conferences and meetings with their
members, thus fulfilling the aim of the organisation in promoting innovative technology and new solutions.
Mr Jean-Marc Jossart, secretary general of AEBIOM. is agronomist (university UCL, Belgium, 1989) and Secretary General
of AEBIOM. He has a special expertise in agriculture, bioenergy systems, liquid biofuels. In total he participated in more than
10 European or national projects in the field of biomass, and several of them as coordinator.
Mrs Edita Vagonyte, is specialised in EU public policies (Institute of Political Studies, Strasbourg, 2005) and European Affairs
Manager for AEBIOM. She is European Affairs Manager for AEBIOM also responsible for communication activities such as
writing AEBIOM newsletter, editing/writing AEBIOM yearly journal ―Biomass News‖ etc.
Previously she had various work experiences at EU institutions and other international organisations.
Name British Trout Association Ltd (BTA)

Participant No. 3 Organisation Type MS SME-AG Country United Kingdom
Business Area:
The British Trout Association, BTA, represents approximately 85% of trout production in the UK. The BTA plays a pivotal role
in the continuing development of the industry on four fronts: (1) By ensuring that the UK trout industry has a reasonable
legislative framework within which to operate, in terms of both EU and domestic legislation; (2) By maintaining a structured
and relevant programme of research and development; (3) By generating an appropriate level of generic promotion to
underpin the marketing activities ongoing within the industry; (4) By administrating the industry‘s quality
assurance scheme,
Quality Trout UK Ltd. Established 26 years ago, the BTA is a limited company but operates on a non-profit basis, re-investing
any surplus into either research and development or promotion activity. Through FEAP (Federation of European Aquaculture
Producers), BTA takes part in a number of projects and are committed to continuing work in the subject area of improvement
and innovation of aquaculture effluent treatment technology to the benefit of trout aquaculture.

Providing SME companies willing to host demonstrations of the developed technology, assisting with industrial assessment
and validation.
Expected benefits:
The SME members of BTA will benefit greatly by receiving IPR to the outcome of the project – assisting with water use
and compliance and overall competitiveness and growth of the sector.
Networking with other partners, leading to future business opportunities.
47

Mr. David Bassett graduated with a Master of Arts in History and International Relations from the University of St Andrews
(UK). He is Executive Secretary of the British Trout Association (BTA), Company Secretary to Quality Trout UK Ltd, a
pioneering UK wide trout quality assurance scheme, serves as a director of both the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum
(SARF) and Aqua TT, is Chairman of the Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers (FSAP), and sits on both the
Management Group of the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture and Steering Committee of the WWF
Trout Dialogue.
Name Sea Marconi Technologies s.a.s (Sea Marconi)

Participant No. 4 Organisation Type SMEP Country Italy
Business Area:
Sea Marconi Technologies was founded in 1968 and the company is mainly focused on providing technologies and services
for the diagnosis, decontamination and detoxification of several matrices, mostly insulating oils from electrical equipment,
contaminated by physical and chemical substances. From 1999 Sea Marconi, along with other European partners and under
the sponsorship of European Commission developed an innovative thermo-chemical process called Haloclean®, with the
original aim to solve the problem of electronic wastes in an environmentally friendly and cost effective manner. At the same
time Sea Marconi and Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe started a set of activities to investigate other feasible applications for
the Haloclean® technology. The most promising application is the treatment of biomass resources (primary biomasses and
agricultural wastes) targeted to the production of fuels, to be used for joint power and heat generation. Sea Marconi is
already able to build and deliver, on an industrial scale, plants for the pyrolysis of a wide range of biomass feedstocks. Sea
Marconi is also involved in another research topic named Nanosponges (cyclodextrin-derived polymers for active molecule
delivery)

Committed and driven SMEP with a precise wish-list delivered to the RTD providers.
Expected benefits:
Expecting high value IPR to utilize in the development of further products. Expansion of Haloclean technology applications
and efficiency improvement. Development of a marketable application for nanosponges technology

Mr Carlo Maria Roggero, has a degree in chemistry and are a R&D manager at Sea Marconi. He has competencies in
environmental decontamination, especially of dielectric fluid, and played an active role in the aforementioned European
Projects. Roggero has also competences in gas chromatography, infrared spectrometry and oil related analyses. He is
currently dealing with the development of the nanosponge technology and collaborates for the industrial development of the
biomass pyrolysis plants.
Name IngrePro BV (Ingrepro)

Participant No. 5 Organisation Type SMEP Country Netherlands
Business Area:
Ingrepro is a bio-tech company specialised in industrial large scale microalgae production. Since 2001 it has been actively
involved in the development and exploitation of state-of-the-art Hybrid microalgae reactors for the production of taylor made
microalgae. Ingrepro operates three large production sites in the Netherlands and is the largest industrial microalgae
producer in Europe and unique in the world due to its in-depth knowledge of cultivating microalgae under extreme (stress)
conditions in order to obtain Enriched Algal Biomass (EAB). For several major clients in the food and feed sector Ingrepro is
producing client-specific EAB.
Role in the Project: Ingrepro will assist in the provision of raceway technology and provide access to swine farming
operations and effluent.
Expected benefits:
Ingrepro aim to use the potential offered by alga culture in the processing of organic waste streams. The AlgaePro® concept
has been developed with this objective in mind. AlgaePro® are plants where waste streams are ―up cycled‖ using
microalgal cultures to produce energy and valuable biomass. The roll-out of this concept will foster social
sustainability in the
Netherlands and beyond by means of the profitable deployment of microalgae in the processing of waste streams. The
BioAlgaeSorb will address key issues to develop our AlgaePro® concept.
48

Mr. Carel Callenbach has a background in marketing and market research within the agricultural business sector
(Economics, University of Wageningen). After working several years within the Dutch agricultural cooperation Cebeco-
Handelsraad as export manager, and after that as commercial director of the French dairy group Serval, he invested in a
start-up microalgae production company in 2001. There he was active as commercial director and in 2004 he took over the
company under the name Ingrepro BV. He is also responsible for the development and introduction of new products and
markets.
Name Varicon Aqua Solutions Ltd (VAS)

Participant No. 6 Organisation Type SMEP Country United Kingdom
Business Area:
Varicon Aqua Solutions was founded in 2004 and the business activities cover a diverse area encompassing aquaculture,
fisheries, amenities and renewables. VAS provides products and services into each sector, ranging through provision of
consultancy, project management, consumables and hardware. VAS is both a trader and a manufacturer. The core of the
business is the design, manufacturing and installation of the BioFence tubular photo-bioreactor systems, with capability to
provide bespoke systems including process control and data acquisition. These are exported worldwide and installed by VAS
engineers, with currently over 50 systems operational across the globe in fish hatcheries, various universities, cosmetic
producers, nutraceutical producers, power utilities researching carbon abatement, plant science groups developing optimised
microalgal strains for the emerging microalgae bio-fuels market, etc. VAS is one of the world‘s leading technology
providers in the Algae PBR sector. VAS works closely with Academia and Industry to develop and improve know-how in the
microalgae biomass sector.

VAS will assist with the provision of photo-bioreactor technology.
Expected benefits:
High value IPR to utilize in the development of further products.
Development of novel applications for microalgae biomass
Networking with other partners, leading to future business opportunities

Mr Joe McDonald has a background in biosciences, bias towards aquaculture new species development. He has a long and
diverse cv in different areas of growing marine finfish and continuous high density production of microalgae from the UK and
abroad.
Name Value for Technology BVBA (VFT)

Participant No. 7 Organisation Type SMEP Country Belgium
Business Area:
VFT is developing business opportunities for technologies related to bio-based products. To reach this target, VFT covers
different business activities such as technology brokering, feasibility studies, partner matching, edition of market reports and
marketing plans, market introduction of new products and coordination of research activities. VFT is unique in its activity by
always combining technical, commercial and financial aspects in its recommendation and specialising on renewable
resource-based topics. In doing so, VFT contributes to the development of the bio-based economy. VFT is also partner in 2
European projects (Ecobinders, FP6 project, completed; VFT being part of the project coordination team) and Bioref-Integ
(FP7 project, running; VFT being workpackage leader).
VFT has completed several missions such as partner search for production of novel modified carbohydrates, market
development plans for proteins, starches, furanic resins... in industrial applications, studies on bioplastics and biomaterials,
development plan for industrial biotechnology in Flanders, several feasibility studies on integrated microalgae production,
partner matching and marketing plans for microalgae projects.

Giving advice to research partners to focus research targets to real business opportunities
Providing the consortium with needed market figures
Coordination of product & application development for microalgae-based products
Edition of a marketing / business plan for developed technologies
49
Expected benefits:
Development of novel applications for microalgae biomass
Networking with other partners, leading to future business opportunities

Philippe Willems, Bôke Tjeerdsma (Orineo) and Alain Bernard (Orineo)
Name Swansea University (SU)

Participant No. 8 Organisation Type RTD Country United Kingdom
Business Area: Two research centres at Swansea University will co-work on the production of microalgae biomass and
downstream bio-processing within the BioAlgaeSorb project. Details of the research centres are described below.
A. Centre for Complex Fluids Processing (CCFP)
The CCFP has an international reputation in the field of biochemical engineering, membrane process and colloids
engineering. It is a collaboration of 5 academic staff and associated postdoctoral and postgraduate researchers, with an
annual budget of over £2 million. The Centre has state of the art equipment for the analysis of colloidal materials (Particle
sizing, zeta potential and as series of AFM instruments), chemical analysis (HPLC and GC) and a range of biochemical
reactors including membrane bioreactors with full support facilities (Cat 2 fermentation lab, 24h steam etc, microbiology and
biochemistry labs). The group has wide experience in the assessment and treatment of waste materials from agriculture and
industry including handling and processing fish manures. We have worked on the development and construction of pilot scale
Bioreactors and MBR for fermentation and enzyme-based hydrolytic processes. The Centre has a range of membrane
equipment that will be used on this project both to study hydrolysis and microbial transformations and purification of
intracellular materials to the pilot scale.
B. Centre for Sustainable Aquaculture Research (CSAR) The CSAR is a state-of-the-art research facility, housing a team of
researchers working on applied aspects of sustainable aquaculture development, funded via a combination of competitive
research grants (eg, Research Councils UK; EU FP6, FP7) and commercial research contracts. The team‘s
activities are
directed towards integrated aqua-farming techniques that make efficient use of natural raw materials, enable recycling of
resources and having a low environmental impact. CSAR has been selected as an RTD partner in this project on the basis of
expertise on the nutritional requirements and feed development for farmed aquatic species, which will be applied in WP5
(Novel Conversion Processes). The Centre comprises a series of controlled environment laboratories incorporating water
recirculation technology, with programmable air and water temperatures; lighting (light intensity, photoperiod); salinity; pH
and redox. These are designed for culturing a wide range of aquatic organisms, from temperate-to-tropical and freshwater-to-
marine environments, at scales ranging from laboratory- to pilot commercial scale (rearing systems up to 60,000 L volume).
Being located on the campus of a large university, the Centre has access to and applies a comprehensive range of
laboratory analytical techniques, including electrophoresis, microarray screening, real-time PCR and automated DNA
sequencing, mass spectroscopy, ICP spectroscopy, gas liquid chromatography, HPLC, LC/mass spectrometry,
microcalorimetry, rheometry, photo correlation spectroscopy, atomic force microscopy and laser defraction particle sizing.
Role in the Project: SU Role in the project: SU will lead WP1 (Enhanced Scientific Understanding) and the development
and testing of prototype microalgae technologies in WP2; will lead WP4 (microalgae harvesting technologies) and play a
leading role in WP5 (refinery and upgrading processes); and will be responsible for model-based technical and economic
evaluations of BioAlgaeSorb technologies in WPs 2 and 6.

Dr Robert Lovitt has been a member of the School of Engineering at Swansea for 22 years, specialising in microbial
processing and bio-reaction engineering, cell harvesting, cell disruption and downstream processing. He is particularly
interested in the application of membrane technology for the product and application of microbes in food and bio-processing.
Recently Dr Lovitt has diversified his research portfolio to cover sustainable aquaculture engineering and technology to
reduce environmental impact, fish feed technology in relation to effluent treatment and effluent treatment technology,
including development of separation processes for microalgae.
Professor Kevin J Flynn (Department of Pure and Applied Ecology) has a career of 25yrs in algal ecophysiology and
related subjects (plankton interactions, nutrient cycling). The last 10 years has seen the development and deployment of a
series of models describing the light-nutrients interactions of microalgae. These models represent a comprehensive (perhaps
the most comprehensive) suite of mechanistic models available for simulating the growth of microalgae. It is this knowledge,
plus the associated experimental-based experience, that he brings to this project.
Dr Robin Shields (Department of Pure and Applied Ecology) has been engaged in applied aquaculture research and
50
for a multidisciplinary research programme incorporating water quality control, process modelling, bioprocess engineering,
aquaculture feeds and nutrition and aquaculture health management. His particular expertise relevant to the BioAlgaeSorb
project is in water recirculation technologies and microalgae mass culture.
Name Teknologisk Institutt AS (TI)

Participant No. 9 Organisation Type RTD Country Norway
Business Area: Teknologisk Institutt as (TI) is a non-profit private founded RTD organization that has grown from a
governmental institute into a highly competent company. TI offers personnel with high level of skills and expertise in a great
number of areas, among others, development of industry technological solutions, including technology for the waste water
industry, and transferring new technology to SMEs and large companies in its competence areas. TI is not an IPR holding or
exploiting business.
TI's activities are divided into the following business areas: Materials Technology, Product Development and Production
Technology, Environment and Safety, R&D EU programmes, Indoor Environment, Calibration, Certification and Training
Services. TI's material laboratory is one of the leading laboratories in Norway, strongly supported by the specialists
knowledge of employees and the modern range of equipment used for undertaking materials and product tests which cover
most industrial requirements. All tests performed, from raw materials to final products are in accordance with national or
international standards, and TI possess considerable expertise in developing individual test programs in accordance with
customers‘ requirements. In addition, TI has fully equipped accredited laboratories for food safety and
water analysis, material testing, mechanical work shops, accredited laboratory including Scanning Electron Microscope
with X-ray analyzer, emission measurement equipment, electronic lab equipment, analytic lab for physical and chemical
analysis, electronic laboratory facilities with low & medium frequency signal generation and measuring equipment, basic
simulation & analysis software.

The BioAlgaeSorb project will especially harness TIs competence and experience fluids handling; process control,
mechanical enginering, prototype design and manfacturing. TI will especially particpate in WP2 Microalgae cultivation and
WP5 Termo-Chemical Conversion and be resposible for WP6 Industrial integration, validation, risk assessment and
contingency planning. TI will also participate in the transfer of
project knowledge from the RTDs to SME-AGs and SMEs.

Dr. Trygve Ask is Team Manager for Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Design at TI. He is project manager for two
―Research for SME‖ projects under the EC´s Framework 7 Programme. He is an industrial designer and holds a
Ph. D. (Dr.
Ing.) in Industrial Design Theory from Oslo School of Architecture and Design in Norway. Prior to working at TI he was Head
of R&D at the Norwegian lighting manufacturer SG Armaturen AS. He has also been teaching and researching for eight
years at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design. The last year as Head of Institute of Industrial Design.
Dr. Tilmann Hettasch holds a PhD in Process technology for outdoor drying of grass from The Institute for Agricultural
Technology at the University of Hohenheim (Germany), and a MSc in Agricultural Science. Prior to TI he has worked as a
Technical Manager at start-up company Biowaz AS (development of biogas plant technology for small farms), and as
Technical Manager at Orkel AS (manufacturer for agricultural machines) where he was responsible for product development,
research and production supporting documents, in addition to working as Marketing Coordinator and Manager for special
product development projects. He has long experience in Research and product development, Project Management,
Marketing and International experiences.
Mr. Eivind Eriksen holds a MSc in experimental physics. He specialized in medical instrumentation with focus on MRI-
Name Durham University (UDUR)

Participant No. 10 Organisation Type RTD Country United Kingdom
Business Area:
The University of Durham, founded in 1832, has an excellent worldwide reputation. The University counts 15,000 students
and employs over 3000 staff, and its academic teaching and research programmes are delivered through departments
contained within three faculties: Arts and Humanities, Science, and Social Sciences and Health. Durham University is one of
the UK's leading research universities and has been successfully involved, both as partner and co-ordinator, in a large
51
number of international and Framework Programme projects including cooperation projects in ICT, Energy, Health, Marie
Curie ITNs and Fellowships, and Capacities projects such as Research Infrastructures. The Chemistry Department is
uniquely equipped to deliver the project; access will be given to a level of infrastructure and equipment, commensurate with a
5*-rated department.

To deliver research and development into catalysts design and function for microalgae lipid fraction upgrading.
Expected benefits:
Test and place new technologies within industry setting; access to novel support materials; access feedstock.

Dr Chris Greenwell is the Addison Wheeler Fellow at Durham University, Affiliate Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies,
Durham University and Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Chemistry, University College London. Dr Greenwell
obtained his PhD from the University of Cambridge in 2004 and has over 30 peer reviewed publications. Amongst other
grants, Dr Greenwell currently leads a ca. €2M project looking at sustainable biodegradable additives for the offshore oil and
gas drilling industry and supervises an industry funded project looking at upgrading biomass lipids using heterogeneous
catalysis. Dr Greenwell now acts as a consultant in marine biofuel technologies to regional government and industry.
Name Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR)

Participant No. 11 Organisation Type RTD Country Greece
Business Area:
Hellenic Center for Marine Research, HCMR, is a multi site organisation and the main research and advisory body for marine
environment, fisheries and aquaculture in Greece. It was created in 2003 and has more than 500 employees. The Institute of
Aquaculture, one of the five Institutes of HCMR, curries out basic and applied research into the rearing process of marine
animals, improvement of quality and welfare. It has state of the art facilities on Crete for both experimental and pilot scale
studies, including hatcheries, broodstock of several fish species, pre-growing and on-growing land facilities and also a net-
pen cage farm. It has large-scale bioreactors for the production of phytoplankton, as well as experimental bioreactors and
equipment for the maintenance and monitoring of stock cultures. Specialized laboratories support any experimental studies.

HCMR will lead and co-ordinate the activities in the project related to WP2 and more specifically to the selection of suitable
microalgae species and optimization of the cultivation microalgae.
Expected benefits:
Assessment of possibility to utilize effluents nutrients and gases in production of microalgae.

Dr Pascal Divanach is Director of Research at HCMR and head of the Aquaculture Department of Crete. He has 30 years
experience in Mediterranean finfish aquaculture and a special knowledge in biology of early fish stages, as well as in fish
larviculture and in all hatchery techniques and aquaculture technology. He has also a very good experience in
methods/techniques used in hatcheries and production of live food and phytoplankton.
Dr Pavlos Makridis has several years experience in basic and applied research related with aquaculture and a specific
interest on rearing of marine fish larvae, live food production and larval nutrition, microbiology, and use of probiotics and
immunostimulants in aquaculture. He has studied as well the effect of increased amounts of CO2 in phytoplankton cultures
and effect of flocculants for harvesting of phytoplankton biomass.
Name University of Florence (UFL)

Participant No. 12 Organisation Type RTD Country Italy
Business Area:
The Research Center for Renewable Energy, CREAR, of the University of Florence, UFL, is a multi-disciplinary institution
merging Energy Engineering, Agriculture, Forestry, Chemistry, Earth Science, etc. It has a long track of records on biomass
and bioenergy as well as on other renewable energy sources. CREAR currently coordinates various EU and National funded
projects in the field of biofuels and small scale bioenergy generation, as well as is carrying out research contracts with the
biofuel Industry. Its members also have long experience on the use and upgrading of pyrolysis oil in order to feed this fuel to
52
engines and turbines. In addition, an important area of work is microalgae strain selection and cultivation, where close
collaboration with the most important Italian Biodiesel industries has been established in the form of research contracts.

Investigation on the microalgae pyrolysis process and design of pyrolysis technology. Testing of microalgae as feedstock for
pyrolysis. Product characterization and test in energy conversion systems.
Expected benefits:
Assessment of microalgae pyrolysis and investigation on quality characteristics of this biofuel.

Dr Ing David Chiaramonti obtained his PhD in Energetics at the University of Florence. His main scientific interest is on the
production and use of biofuels. His research work covers thermochemical biomass conversion processes as well as liquid
biofuel production and use. He is a member of several associations and scientific committees. As regards pyrolysis, he has
been working on this area for many years, developing and testing emulsions of diesel and pyrolysis oil from various
biomasses in engines and boilers.
Other researchers involved in the project : Prof.Ing.Francesco Martelli, dr Ing Matteo Prussi, Ing Andrea Maria Rizzo,
Ing.Giovanni Riccio.
B2.2: Resources to be Committed

resources of the consortium to the skills required. In order to calculate the overall effort required, the Work Programme was
constructed, focusing on enabling the delivery of the project objectives, deliverables and results, and the required man months
and other costs were then calculated. The specific objectives are the translated form of the overall project goal which is
enabling European SMEs to remediate wastes, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and produce biofuels via micro-algae
cultivation. The technical management activities are included in the individual tasks, whereas the overall consortium
management is listed separately.
We believe that through the specified technical work programme and management scheme, we have optimally mixed and
combined the skills and resources available from the partners and the RTD performers. In particular, the skills are integrated to
form a coherent delivery capability, and will ensure that the project objectives are met. A good balance between the intellectual
and resource effort between NioBio, AEBIOM and BTA as SME-AGs, Sea Marconi, IngePro, Varicon and VFT as Core Group
of SMEs and the RTD is proposed to ensure that the SME-AGs and SMEs remain in control and thus represent the best
interest of the wider SME community.
The costs included in the budget for the BioAlgaeSorb project is divided into five main categories of person months, travel &
subsistence, consumables, durable equipment and sub-contracting. An outlining of the interpretation of these costs into the
project budget is given in the following of this section.
Justification for Allocated Personnel Resources

The percentage allocation of staff into the WPs demonstrate that we are using an optimum mix of manpower and that neither
the RTD performers, SME-AGs nor SMEs are over-utilizing expensive staff resources which would lead to poor value for money
for the project. Table 2.4.3 Budget Allocation Table provides information demonstrating how the volume of resources in person
months, consumables and other costs (mostly travel costs), are distributed between the different activities of the project. The
WorkPlan in Section B1.4 further provides information with regards to man months allocated to the different WPs as do the Staff
Effort Form as table 1.3 d.
The required man months have been calculated based on a task-by-task assessment of each of the WP activities to achieve
the defined objectives. The pool of manpower resources and company expertise has been deployed into individual tasks
relative to each partner‘s technical expertise. We have endeavoured also to manage the risk in the project by applying
the higher cost and more expert and experienced researchers into individual tasks that are more technically challenging and
can justify those costs.
The SME- AGs and SME core group do not receive any major funding from the grant to offset their manpower resource costs,
as they will receive exploitation rights from the results of the project. However, each partner will retain some of the grant to
53
cover their ―out of pocket‖ expenses including travel, consumables, tooling and patent protection. As the SMEs
have little or no research capability, especially for the areas of critical risk in the proposed development, RTD performers will
be needed in the technical research, development and validation areas. The funded EC grant enable SME-AGs and SME
partners to effectively
―subcontract‖ RTD performers as technological service providers, using the EC grant and being reimbursed at
100% of their
RTD activities.
Management of Cost vs. Risk Through Application of Most Cost Effective Organisations Into WPs
The cost for each partner is one of the first aspects of the project to be considered. When considering costs, great emphasis is
put on expertise and quality of the partners‘ work as all project participants have varying depths of skill, expertise
and experience, and their costs vary accordingly. In order to manage these costs as well as avoid risks, each task activity in
the project has been assigned to the most appropriate partner, and we have asked each partner to provide the most
appropriately skilled person within their organisation to deliver the outputs of the assigned tasks. The Table 2.2 shows
the indicative breakdown of the costs of the RTD performers to the SME participants.
Maximum Value for Money

It is vital that the allocation of resource is focused towards the activities of greatest technical challenge. However, it is even
more important that the allocation of resource is focused towards the output deliverables. This is the key indicator of value for
money. No partner is expected to input resource at a large scale whilst deriving low levels of benefit, similarly, no partner is
unfairly gaining from very high levels of potential benefit from only minimal resource input to the WP.
Table 2.2: Indicative Breakdown of the Offer from the RTD Performers to the SME participants
No. of Project
RTD Personnel Durable Overhead Other Total by WP
Person / Results
Perf. Costs Equipm. Consumables Computing Costs Costs RTD No.
Month No.
SU 8 35088 0 1400 0 26917 1500 64905 1 1
TI 2 12320 0 2000 0 17741 1000 33061 1 1
UDUR 2 10200 0 2000 0 10513 1500 24213 1 1
HCMR 2 4000 0 1000 0 2400 1000 8400 1 1
UFL 2 5500 0 2000 0 4532 1500 13532 1 1
SU 28 122808 0 44000 0 94209 8500 269517 2 2
TI 12 73920 0 20000 0 106445 8000 208365 2 2
HCMR 60 120000 0 37000 0 72000 15000 244000 2 2
SU 24 105264 0 15000 0 80751 8000 209015 3 3
SU 12 52632 0 15000 0 40375 3000 111007 4 4
UDUR 30 153000 67200 50000 0 157689 12000 439889 4 4
TI 12 73920 0 60000 0 106445 7250 247615 5 5
UFL 66 181500 0 40000 0 149570 25000 369070 5 5
SU 11 48246 0 2000 0 37011 3000 90257 6 6,7
TI 12 73920 0 6000 0 106445 7000 193365 6 6,7
UDUR 6 30600 0 3400 0 31538 3000 68538 6 6,7
HCMR 22 44000 0 4000 0 26400 2000 76400 6 6,7
UFL 6 16500 0 2000 0 13597 5500 37597 6 6,7
Subtotal 317 1163418 67200 306800 0 1084578 113750 2735746

Total 0
Receipts
We have cross-referenced each task description with the allocations of the work to each partner and an assessment of
hardware, software, production and development equipment necessary to execute each task. We have avoided duplication of
equipment between partners and sought commitments that each partner will make the relevant equipment available in line with
the project schedule. NoBio, AEBIOM and BTA have the highest rates for consumables with regards to the SME-AG and SME
partners. AEBIOM has the most extensive dissemination tasks among the SME-AGs and does therefore have a higher
consumable budget than the other SME-AGs and SME partners.
54
Justification of Travel and Subsistence Costs

During the framework of the 3-year duration of the project, we have in our best intension to achieve a functional project
workforce, knowledge transfer and dissemination of results, estimated the number of travels required per partner and calculated
the costs expended on this activity. Thus, the tables below shows the results of these estimations and calculations.
Table 2.3: BioAlgaeConsumable Costs per Partner

Part. Short Cost
Country Description
No. Name €
SME SME-AGs and SMEs
1 NoBio Norway 4500 Project promotion material for demo, training and dissemination + web page
2 AEBIOM Belgium 6000 Project promotion material, leaflets, video, CDs, posters etc
3 BTA UK 3000 Project promotion material, leaflets, video, CDs, posters etc (painting sector)
Sea
4 Italy 1000 Project promotion material, leaflets, video, CDs, posters etc (mechanical sector)
Marconi
5 Ingepro Netherlands 1000 Equipment and other material for system tests
Equipment and other material for validation tests and training and demo
6 VAS UK 1000
activities
Equipment and other material for validation tests and training and demo
7 VFT Belgium 1000
activities
RTD performers
8 SU UK 77400 Manufacture of prototypes, lab tests, industrial validaion, transportation costs.
Test and survey material, communication costs, user trials demos and training
9 TI Norway 88000
material
Consumables for development and tests in addition to company general
10 UDUR UK 55400
equipment
Test consumables communication costs, user trials demos and training material
11 HCMR Greece 42000
(nationally)
Test consumables communication costs, user trials demos and training material
12 UFL Italy 44000
(nationally)
Subtotal SME AGs + SMEs 17 500
Subtotal RTD Performers 306800
We have based our calculations on different costs related to travels in different European countries, and the location of each
partner in accordance to easy/difficult access to airports and other transportation facilities.
As being an international project with partners from different European countries, the project meetings will justify a number of
travels for the partners. In addition, the project includes dissemination and demonstration objectives, which require participation
at conferences, exhibitions, workshops and secondments and exchange of staff.
55
Table 2.4: Budget Allocation Table
56
BioAlgaeSorb
Section B3: Impact – The Potential Impact Through the

Development, Dissemination and Use of Project Results
B3.1: Contribution, at the European and/or International Level, to the Expected
Impacts Listed in the Work Programme Under the Relevant Activity
Main Impact of BioAlgaeSorb

Diversifying Europe's sustainable bioenergy supplies
Reduction of GHG emissions
Production of new value added natural products from microalgae
Recovering of inorganic nutrients from effluents
Land based aquaculture in EU1

Direct employment 11884
Indirect employment 2834
Production value >€ 630 M
Volume >265 000 tons
Biomass Industry Indicative targets - Renewable Energy Sources 2 4.6 M GWh3
New biogas plants # 6000
Biomass combined heat and power units # 450
New district / centralized heating units installations # 13 000
Facts & Figures - EU-27 2006
Retail market value products from micro-algae € 4.0 B4
CO2 output from the energy industry 1577 M tons
Contribution of bioenergy to primary energy supply 3.7 %
Organic effluent stream Europe 244 M tons
Table 3.1 - Fact box 1
B3.1.1: Improving the Competitiveness of SME-AG Members

The commercial potential of microalgae has been recognised globally for biological carbon capture and for the
sustainable production of biofuels, specialty chemicals, foods and feedstuffs, leading to major recent investments,
including more than €200 million in combined investments and commitments to microalgae fuels-based public private
partnerships, private companies and first stage commercial projects during 2008 (mainly USA). While there is
substantial European expertise in this arena, there is an acute risk that European competiveness will be lost without
a coordinated programme of technology development as offered to SME AG members by the BioAlgaeSorb project.
This is justified not only to improve SME competitiveness, but also to support European sustainability measures,
namely reduction of GHG emissions, protection of water quality and transition to a Low Carbon economy. This will be
of high interest to all concerned stakeholders, e.g. the general public, consumers, policy makers, and policy
1 EC Fisheries Directorate General, Forward study of community aquaculture,(1999, SSB ( 2006)

2 http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/legislation/electricity_en.htm
3 Indicative targets for renewable electricity have been set by the EU 22.1% of total electricity production by 2010
4 Pulz & Gross (2004)
57
BioAlgaeSorb
administrators / regulators. The long-term and shorter-term economic viability for both the SME sectors and general
society will benefit significantly from the impacts created by the BioAlgaeSorb project.
The technologies to be developed within the BioAlgaeSorb project will improve the competitiveness of SME-AG
members via a common approach to effluent remediation. Microalgae cultivation will form the basis for biological CO 2
capture from industrial flue gases and recycling of soluble nutrients from aqueous agricultural and industrial effluents,
generating a valuable new raw material (microalgae biomass) in the process. The competitiveness of the SMEs will
be improved by reductions in their nutrient and carbon emissions (lower discharge tariffs; eligibility for carbon credits)
and by the value of the microalgae biomass as a commodity to be used in-house (eg, for on-site bioenergy
production) or for sale in processed form. Crucially, an integrated biorefinery approach will be developed, whereby
the maximum economic yield is obtained per unit biomass and a range of value added products is made available.
This contrasts with conventional exploitation paths for microalgae (eg, exclusive focus on oil fractions for biofuels)
and assists with production economics. The development of food and feed ingredients from microalgae protein,
carbohydrate, oil and other fractions furthermore aligns with increasing worldwide demand for health and wellbeing
products and EU goals for preventative healthcare.
The SME members of the European Biomass Association (AEBIOM; European SME-AG) and Norwegian Biomass
Association (NoBio; AC SME AG) are engaged in bioenergy production, generating bio-heat, -electricity, -fuels and -
gas. These businesses will benefit from BioAlgaeSorb both via a new sustainable source of combustible biomass and
by a new technology to reduce their GHG emissions.
Members of the British Trout Association (BTA) will be the first SME-AG beneficiaries from the aquaculture sector for
the developed technologies. They will gain in competitiveness by being permitted to increase fish production per unit
water consumption via improved remediation of effluents. Methods will furthermore be developed for BTA members
to reuse harvested microalgae biomass in the fish farming process, eg for combined heat and power production or
the production of safe high quality nutrients. The benefits accrued by BTA members will be transferable to the many
other land-based fish farms in Europe, and also to intensive terrestrial livestock farms. With some modification, it is
expected that production of microalgae from farm effluents will also be adaptable to municipal waste water treatment
and some branches of food processing, greatly extending the impact of the BioAlgaeSorb project beyond the
immediate partnership.
The participating SMEs from the microalgae production sector will also gain enhanced competiveness, both for direct
sales and IP exploitation. The benefits accrued will extend internationally, since for physical environmental reasons
the largest land areas identified for commercial microalgae production (especially for biofuels) lie beyond Europe and
technologies and know-how are widely sought after for this purpose.
Increase in demand for microalgae systems via BioAlgaeSorb will furthermore have a positive effect on component
suppliers from diverse business sectors, eg in the areas of pumping, filtration, plastics, sensors and control systems.
B3.1.2: Markets for BioAlgaeSorb Technologies

As indicated by the range of SME-AGs and SMEs participating, there are good markets for BioAlgaeSorb
technologies across a broad supply chain, encompassing GHG emitters, livestock producers, biofuel manufacturers,
food processors, sewage and waste water treatment businesses, and feed and food manufacturers. The project is
directly targeted at SME beneficiaries in the first three categories, but will have much broader applications in related
sectors.
GHG Emitters - Biomass Power Generation

Biomass power generation represents a growing proportion of total renewable energy generation in Europe (16.8% in
2006, source AEBIOM). BioAlgaeSorb will assist the sustainable growth of this sector by developing a new source of
carbon neutral biomass from microalgae and associated processes to efficiently convert this biomass to electricity
and fuel. A further environmental benefit will be accrued by reducing power plant CO 2 emissions by directing flue
gases for microalgae growth. The processes and products developed for this sector will be transferable to other
58
BioAlgaeSorb
industries that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels (e.g., conventional goal/oil/gas power plants, steel manufacturers, flat
glass production plants, cement plants, breweries, distilleries).
As a renewable energy source, biomass power generation is key for European diversification away from fossil fuels5,
reducing GHG emissions and current dependence on unreliable and volatile fossil fuel markets (in particular oil and
gas). The growth of renewable energy sources also stimulates employment in Europe, creating new technologies and
improving trade balance. The total electric energy production in the EU-27 (2007) was based on 3% biomass only,
illustrating tremendous scope for growth.
As expressed by the EC, ―Member States 6should work towards an indicative trajectory tracing a path towards
the achievement of their final mandatory targets while having in mind that there are different uses of Biomass
and therefore it is essential to mobilise new biomass resources. It is appropriate to monitor the impact of
biomass cultivation, such as through land use changes, including displacement, the introduction of invasive alien
species and other effects on biodiversity, and effects on food production and local prosperity. The Commission should
consider all relevant sources of information, including the FAO hunger map. Biofuels should be promoted in a
manner that encourages greater agricultural productivity and the use of degraded land.‖ As stated previously in
this application, microalgal biomass fits these criteria very well and BioAlgaeSorb will provide a key means for
Europe to diversify and expand the biomass power sector sustainably.
GHG Emitters – Other Industries

Other industries that emit large amounts of CO2 during their operations can also benefit from BioAlgaeSorb
technologies to bioconvert CO2 to a usable biomass. Examples of such industries include: Coal Burning and Natural
Gas Power Plants; Petrochemicals; Iron & Steel; Cements; Sugar; Tyres; Carbon Black; Mining; Aluminium; Paper;
Inorganic Chemicals; Fertilizers
Gaseous waste streams Amount

Energy industries 1577 M tons CO2 equiv.
All industrial processes 288 M tons (incl. metal prod.)
The metal producing industry 96 M tons
Table 3.2 - Overview of potential gaseous waste streams for utilisation 7
Enterprises Producing Nutrient-Rich Soluble Wastes or Solid Organic Wastes that can be Converted to
Microalgae Nutrients
There are several European industry sectors that produce vast amounts of effluent containing valuable nutrients for
microalgal growth that otherwise form both an environmental and societal burden and require undesirable
expenditure for their remediation. An overview of the quantities of wastes involved is provided in Table AT02, below.
Waste streams Amount
Sewage sludge 11 M tons
Animal faeces, urine, manure 125 M tons
Animal waste of food preparation & production 13 M tons
Animal & vegetal waste 95 M tons
Table 3.3 - Overview of potential aqueous waste streams for utilisation 8

Land-based aquaculture: The cultivation of finfish and shellfish is a substantial and expanding European industry.
Following current and anticipated trends, industrial growth is expected to enlarge markedly over the coming decades,
as global population and demand for healthy food sources increase, whilst harvest from wild stocks remains static at
best or declines. More than 400,000 T of farmed fish pa are currently produced on land in the EU, conferring
5 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/index_en.htm
6 DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the promotion of the use of energy
from renewable sources amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC
7 http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
8 http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
59
BioAlgaeSorb
significant organic loading on receiving waters, while disposal of solid fish manures in many cases incurs a charge to
operators and, in some situations (eg, where the manures contain a high salt content), is physically unsuitable for
conventional land spreading practices. Increasingly stringent discharge regulations, driven principally by the EU
Water Framework Directive, have furthermore encouraged greater water re-use and the adoption of water recycling
technologies by land-based fish farms, in order to reduce total discharge water volumes and to enable more efficient
separation of solids. These trends provide greater incentive and greater technical capacity for aquaculture SMEs,
including members of the British Trout Association, to capture and valorise soluble aquaculture effluents via
BioAlgaeSorb technologies.
Livestock agriculture: Livestock agriculture is responsible for the greatest proportion of organic effluents generated in
Europe and for the greatest release of ammonia into surface waters. The amount of effluents produced by the 9350
M hens, 160 M pigs, 89 M cattle and 24 M dairy cows in the EU could find a new more valuable and environmental
routing.
In an increasingly regulated environment (ref. Water Framework Directive and others), it is vital for livestock
producers to reduce the quantities of effluent released per unit stock production. High quality feeds and feed
management regimes, together with installation of basic effluent water treatment systems, have been important in
enabling improvements so far. BioAlgaeSorb will provide a key additional waste remediation technology that is
applicable both to fish production and terrestrial livestock production, and has the added benefit of yielding a valuable
commodity (ie, microalgae biomass).
Example BioAlgaeSorb Impact: 10 The sewage/manure stream of 25 000 pigs will be able to bioconvert 600 tons of
CO2 to microalgae biomass while powering a 500 kW biogas unit. By extension, adoption of BioAlgaeSorb
technologies for all 160 M pigs farmed in Europe could potentially bioconvert 3840 M tons of CO2 in total.
Sewage & grey water: Sewage & grey water treatment industries will also be able to benefit in future from
BioAlgaeSorb technologies.
Example BioAlgaeSorb Impact: The sewage sludge from 400 M people contains 1.8 M tons N and 0.3 M tons P that
could potentially be recycled via microalgae production.
Food processing: Food processing companies European businesses that produce large quantities of animal waste
(eg, Pork, Poultry, Meat, Diary, Seafood) are increasingly converting this waste via anaerobic digestion (AD) into
methane, which in turn is used as a heating fuel. The residual liquor from the AD process is rich in N and P that could
be re-fixed via microalgae, thereby reducing the discharge of soluble effluents, bioconverting CO 2 from biomethane
combustion and providing an additional source of biomass (ie microalgae) for further bioenergy production. An
additional potential benefit to these companies would be the use of de-oiled microalgae meal as animal feed.
SMEs from these and other sectors that produce low cost/ low value nutrient-rich liquid effluents (eg, those involved
in anaerobic digestion of municipal wastes) will be able to exploit BioAlgaeSorb technologies, yielding biomass for
energy production and reducing their GHG emissions thanks to CO2 uptake by microalgae.
Enterprises Producing and Using Products from Microalgae

Microalgae production for established markets has approximately doubled in recent years from 5,000 to 10,000 T pa
(Pulz and Gross, 2004; Algal Industry Survey, 2008). Market breakdown as of 2004 is summarised in Table 3.4.
Product Group Product Retail Value (U.S $×106) Development

Health Food Growing
1,250-2,500
Functional Food Growing
Biomass 800
Feed Additive 300 Fast-growing
Aquaculture 700 Fast-growing
Soil Conditioner Promising
9 Eurostat
10 Info: A. Verschoor, Ingrepro BV, 2008
60
BioAlgaeSorb
Astaxanthin <150 Starting

Colouring Substances Phycocyanin >10 Stagnant
Phycoerythrin >2 Stagnant
β-Carotene >280
Promising
Tocopherol Stagnant
100-150
Antioxidants Antioxidant Extract (CO2)
ARA 20
DHA Growing
PUFA Extracts 1,500 Fast-growing
10
Toxins 1-3
Special Products
Isotopes >5
Table 3.4 - Overview of market values [USD] of selected products
Business sectors that currently incorporate microalgae / microalgae extracts in their products include:
Biopolymers & Bioplastics (Bioplastics fast market growth of more than 8-10% per year. 11Bioplastics cover
approximately 10-15% of the total plastics market and will increase its market share to 25-30% by 2020. The
market itself is huge and is expected to reached over € 7 B by 2020.
Human Food & Food Supplements like natural anti oxidants (Astaxanthin) and other carotenoid products
and essential polyunsaturated fatty acids (Omega 3). Frost & Sullivan (2005) estimates that astaxanthin is
now one of the fastest growing carotenoids in Europe. European carotenoids were worth over € 300 M in
2003, with 17 per cent of this coming from supplements. But currently less than 1 ton of astaxanthin is going
into supplements per year, compared to up to 150 tons for the aquaculture industry. The market size12 of
astaxanthin for human use is currently valued at over €14M and is forecast to experience significant growth
over the next few years, driven by the increase in awareness of its health benefits.
Other growing markets include the following: Livestock & Fish feed, Shellfish diet, Marine fish larvae cultivation;
Paints, Dyes and Colorants; Lubricants; Antimicrobials, Antiviral & Antifungal; Neural-protective products; Slimming
related products; Anti-cellulite; Skin Anti-ageing & Sensitive skin treatment; Pulp and paper, Textiles dyeing; Metal
finishing; Pharmaceutical; Biotechnology; Starch & cellulose Chemicals; Pesticides & insecticides; Fertilizers.
Many businesses that use microalgae exploit primarily the protein component. For these companies, the adoption of
a biorefinery approach is attractive, ie to extract the biomass oil (lipid) for biodiesel or nutritional supplements and
use the de-oiled microalgae cake rich in proteins.
Biofuels: Biofuels are a rapidly emerging industry globally, for reasons stated earlier in this document. The EU
biofuel market in 2006 was still dominated by biodiesel (4074 MTOE) and vegetable oil (641 MTOE), that together
represented 84 % of the total biofuel market (5601 MTOE, of which 871 was bioethanol and the remaining 15 MTOE
biogas - EurObserv‘ER - Biofuels Barometer, 2008). In 2009, there are approximately 120 plants in the EU
producing up to 6,100,000 tonnes of biodiesel annually. The EU currently represents 90% of global biodiesel
production and consumption, reflecting the prevalence of diesel-powered vehicles in Europe. The European
biodiesel market is expected to steadily grow during the next years, as estimated by the EU Commission, providing
a particularly strong incentive for securing alternative feedstocks, in order to avoid the displacement of food crops
by fuel crops (see Figure 3.1 below).
11 http://www.prlog.org/10047578-bioplastics-market-worldwide-with-high-growth-through-consumer-demands-for-nontoxic-
products.html)
12 www.export.gov.il/Eng
61
BioAlgaeSorb
Figure 3.1 13
The impact of the BioAlgaeSorb technologies on the production of biofuel in the EU will be significant, as microalgae
are globally considered to represent one of the most important and productive source of new biomass. European
SMEs will benefit from the investigations carried out by RTD performers on a leading-edge technology, thus opening
– if successful – new business areas and opportunities for huge EU and international markets. In particular,
BioAlgaeSorb will focus on transforming extracted microalgal oils to second generation biofuels that are compatible
with existing engine designs. This aligns with the global drive to replace first generation biofuels and the processes
developed will therefore have international markets.
Microalgae biomass is also suitable for the production of liquid fuels via pyrolysis, which involves rapidly heating the
biomass (500oC/sec) to intermediate temperatures (400-600oC) followed by rapid cooling (residence times 1-2 s).
These reaction conditions allow the conversion of thermally unstable biomass compounds to a liquid product called
bio-oils while minimizing undesired reactions (i.e. coke and gas formation).
Fertilizers (re-assimilation of inorganic nutrients): Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are the three main
nutrients of plants. Mineral fertilizers are made from naturally-occurring raw materials which have been transformed
into a more plant-available form by industrial processing:
Nitrogen (N), taken from the air. Cost >€1,000 per T
Potassium (K), extracted from mined ores
Phosphorus (P), extracted from mined ores. Cost >€1,000 per T
Global phosphorus reserves are expected to be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years, therefore it is important to
develop and apply techniques that can recapture these nutrients that are so important for agriculture. BioAlgaeSorb
offers a means of doing this, by biologically fixing nitrogen and phosphorous from aqueous effluent streams into
microalgae biomass.
Conventional methods for fertilizer production furthermore discharge very large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere
(eg, circa 2T CO2 released per T N produced), providing a further incentive for recycling N and P from effluents.
13 Source: OECD, 2007
62
BioAlgaeSorb
To illustrate the potential for recycling these inorganic nutrients in Europe, the 14 350 M hens, 160 M pigs, 113 M
cows reared annually produce 125 M tons faeces, urine and manure, containing15 the following quantities of nitrogen,
phosphorus:
Waste from Nitrogen [N] (tons) Phosphorus [P] (tons)

Animal faeces, urine, manure (125 M tons) 87 000 25 000
Table 3.5 – Inorganic compounds in manure
B3.1.3: Economic Justification

The inputs required for microalgae production within BioAlgaeSorb (water, CO2, light, micro- and macro-nutrients)
have low, zero or even negative costs, while the outputs are valuable commodities: clean water, energy, fuel, and
high quality crude stabilised materials. Aqueous effluents become purified, CO2 combustion gas (from biomass
energy production plants and other sources) is captured and microalgal biomass becomes fuel for transport, energy
generation and a range of high value products. The technology is very versatile, enabling local solutions to be
developed for local effluent problems and providing flexibility in the desired microalgal end products.
Microalgae are currently cultivated beyond Europe at large scale in inexpensive systems such as shallow open
ponds or raceways with salt-, brackish- or fresh water. However, there are few technology providers with the requisite
products and processes to cultivate microalgae cost effectively under European conditions: the BioAlgaeSorb
partnership draws together SMEs and RTDs with leading technologies and expertise in this area, whom will adapt
and extend existing technologies for the benefit of European SME AG members.
Microalgae Production Costs

Although large-scale microalgae cultivation has been undertaken internationally for over 40 years, knowledge and
experience is still limited to a few selected species16 and to well defined operating conditions and applications that
are less directly relevant to Europe and BioAlgaeSorb end users.
Cost data for microalgae production reported in the literature varies depending on climate, species, growing systems
and other conditions. 17 Comparison on base case capital and production cost for two production technologies is
shown below.
Raceway Photobioreactor
Production cost per kg
€ 2-718 € 30-7019
microalgae
Lipid content 15% 25%
Table 3.6 – Production costs algae
The basic abiotic inputs for production of BioAlgaeSorb are without cost:
Resource Price
Sunlight Free
Water (fresh, salt or brackish) Free
CO2, Free
Effluent (for N & P) Free or negative costs*
Table 3.7 – Input costs for production
14 Eurostat
15 Based on manure data Yara.no
16 Borowitzka M.A. (1992) Journal of applied phycology, 4(3), 267-279
17 Microalgae technologies & processes for biofuels/bioenergy production in British Colombia, Alabi-Tampier-Bibeau (2009)
18Benemann & Oswald (1996), Lolke Sijtsma-Reith et.al. (2006)
19 Moore (2001), Molina Grima (2003), Olaizola (2003)

63
BioAlgaeSorb
*Depending on supply-demand situations and costs of transport
The problem of CO2 emissions experienced by other industries is actually an opportunity for microalgae farms. 20An
estimated one ton of CO2 could yield net revenues of around €137 if used as the feedstock for an microalgae farm.
Seen from a CO2 bioconversion perspective:
Component Value
Biofuel € 22
Protein € 58
Methane € 19
Fertilizer € 20
Carbon credits € 18
Total € 137
Table 3.8 – Output value of production – based on 1 ton CO2
Per hectare of microalgae farm one could bioconvert about 100 tons of CO2 each year.
Products from BioAlgaeSorb and their market values:

Primary produce Value and prices Market size
Water < € 1/m3 but varies geographically
Biomass from microalgae See derived products
Derived products
Astaxanthin for seafood and animals € 1600/kg of pure staxanthin 21 26 M ton
Astaxanthin for human consumption
€ 14 M
(potent anti oxidants)
Beta-Carotene € 2.4 / ton € 300 M
Oils with Highly Unsaturated fatty
€4000 /ton 30 B ton
Acids)
Feed from biomass
Microalgae oil for fuel €360/ ton
Bio-Plastic € 7 B by 2020
€ 250/ton (2008) raw material World abundance in danger.
Alkali salts
€ 1135/ton consumer ready product So future markets
Table 3.9 - Fact box 2
Valuable Products Derived from Microalgae

Reuse of Nitrogen and Phosphorus: 22At current rates, phosphorus reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100
years. The price level of raw base material for phosphorus production surged from 36 €/ton (2007) to 250 €/ton
(2008) while end user market prices for ready to use fertilizers are € 1350 per ton. Fertilizer costs are a major cost
component for conventional microalgae cultivation – BioAlgaeSorb will resolve this by reusing N and P from effluents.
Nitrogen [N] Phosphorus [P]

Market price23 € 1135 / ton € 1135 / ton
Weight fraction of microalgae 4-8 % 0,5 %
Mined resource. Diminishing world
Industrial production price connected
Supply situation abundance combined with rising
to energy price levels.
demand.
20 http://www.csrinfo.org/en/component/content/article/386-polskie-wydarzenia-csr-kwiecie
21 www.algatech.com
22 D.Cordell, Institute for sustainable futures, Univ. Of technology , Sydney, june 2008
23 Farmer weekly 2009
64
BioAlgaeSorb
Content in solids of municipal and 0,68% of 136 M tons = ~1 M ton 0,11% of 136 M tons = 0.15 M ton
animal waste (10% of EU demand) (5% of EU demand
Table 3.10 – Market situation and market value for N and P
Microalgal fuels: One of the challenges for the viability of microalgal fuels as a new technology is to compete in
financial terms with existing fossil fuel-based technologies. Much of the background work on microalgal biofuel
production was carried out at the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under the auspices of the
Aquatic Species Program in the 1980‘s and 1990‘s. At the time of writing (1996) the main conclusion of
that work was that it was not economically feasible to produce biodiesel from algae because even using the
best-case scenarios, the price would still be twice as high as the price of a similar quantity of petroleum diesel.
However, considering that the petroleum diesel price has more than doubled over the last 11 years, microalgal
biodiesel production should now be viable. BioAlgaeSorb will be key to achieving profitable production of
microalgal biofuels for Europe, incorporating a biorefinery approach to enhance production economics compared to
more conventional,
―fuel-only‖ microalgae approaches.
Location cost: Microalgae cultivation is non-competitive with agriculture, aquaculture and urban development.
Species of microalgae can be selected for growth in seawater, water from saline aquifers or even wastewater from
municipal treatment plants. This provides good opportunity for locating at areas where land costs are low, assisted in
the case of BioAlgaeSorb by co-location with effluent producers such as power plants.
Overall
Algae-to-bioenergy technologies are still pre-commercial and are in need for significant R&D to increase
productivity, reduce costs and need to find other product market combination that gives a synergetic effect.
AlgaeBioSorb will combine several technologies boosting the financial viability and will make this form of
alternative energy and cleaning successful.
B3.1.4: Societal Aspects and Regulatory Drivers
Employment24
Aquaculture contribution to rural development and poverty alleviation: Aquaculture has a positive role in rural
development, both in coastal and inland situations. In inland circumstances, agriculture and forestry have been the
main elements of such rural development programmes throughout Europe. Increased integration between
aquaculture and agriculture could be a good means to improve rural life through multiple use of resources. Although
the main element of aquaculture will remain food production, the importance of various services to be provided in
recreation, rural tourism, nature conservation and water management will increase in the future, and this will provide
employment and business opportunities for the rural populations.
The contribution of marine aquaculture to employment and reduced rural migration has been noted in a number of
countries, for example, Norway, United Kingdom/Scotland, and Greece, particularly in several rural areas where few
alternative economic activities have been able to provide stable, long term jobs.
The estimates of jobs created in and by the biomass industry varies.The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research25 mentions 1.27 FTE/ GWh which would indicate 260,000 FTE for each percent shift of European wide
energy generation from fossil to biomass.
Due to additional heat

Jobs created in Full Time Due to additional Due to additional bio-
generation from Total
Equivalent / Year in 2010 liquid biofuel electricity generation
biomass
Scenario Business as usual 34020 44370 6150 84540
Scenario Biomass action plan 102627 96390 68158 267175
Difference BAP-BAU 68607 52020 62008 182635
24 http://www.eubia.org/
25/www.tyndall.manchester.ac.uk/publications/Quantification
65
BioAlgaeSorb
Table 3.11 - Employment creation
European communities will benefit greatly from the conversion of effluents into energy, from lower CO 2 emissions,
and decreased loading on local ecosystems caused by aqueous effluents from agriculture, aquaculture and industry.
Topic Directive of the European Parliament, the Council and EU Communication

Energy (COM(2007) 1
Sewage sludge 86/278/EEC
Urbane waste water 91/71/EEC
CO2 Kyoto Protocol on climate change to cut emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012
Renewable energy 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC
Biomass Action Plan COM(2005) 628 final - Official Journal C 49 of 28.02.2005
The EU on Energy
26 EC communication) proposing an energy policy for Europe, with the goal to combat climate change and boost the
EU‘s energy security and competitiveness is adopted. This set out the need for the EU to draw up a new
energy path towards a more secure, sustainable and low-carbon economy, for the benefit of all users. One aim is to
give energy users greater choice, and another is to spur investment in energy infrastructure. Based on
the European Commission‘s proposal, in March 2007 the Council endorsed the following targets:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 % (compared with 1990 levels) by 2020;
Improving energy efficiency by 20 % by 2020;
Raising the share of renewable energy to 20 % by 2020;
Increasing the level of biofuels in transport fuel to 10 % by 2020
The EU on Sewage sludge

The Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC seeks to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to
regulate its use in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man. To this end, it
prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is injected or incorporated into the soil. Treated
sludge is defined as having undergone "biological, chemical or heat treatment, long-term storage or any other
appropriate process so as significantly to reduce its fermentability and the health hazards resulting from its use". The
Directive also requires that sludge should be used in such a way that account is taken of the nutrient requirements of
plants and that the quality of the soil and of the surface and groundwater is not impaired
The EU on Urban waste water

The Urban waste water treatment directive (91/71/EEC) concerns the treatment and discharge of urban waste water
and the treatment of waste water from certain industrial sectors, including the fish-processing industry and other life
stock and food processing industries.
The EU on CO2
The EU has been taking serious steps to address its own greenhouse gas emissions since the early 1990s. In 2000
the Commission launched the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). The ECCP has led to the adoption of
a wide range of new policies and measures. These include the pioneering EU Emissions Trading System, which has
become the cornerstone of EU efforts to reduce emissions cost-effectively, and legislation to tackle emissions of
fluorinated greenhouse gases.
26 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/introduction
66
BioAlgaeSorb
The EU on renewable energy

Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources amending
and subsequently repealing. When designing their support systems, Member States may encourage the use of
biofuels which give additional benefits, including the benefits of diversification offered by biofuels made from waste,
residues, non-food cellulosic material, ligno-cellulosic material and microalgae, as well as non-irrigated plants grown
in arid areas to fight desertification, by taking due account of the different costs of producing energy from traditional
biofuels on the one hand and of those biofuels that give additional benefits on the other
The EU Biomass action plan

The Communication from the Commission of 7 December 2005 - Biomass Action Plan [COM(2005) 628 final - Official
Journal C 49 of 28.02.2005]. To cope with the increasing dependence on imported energy, the European Union (EU)
must bring into play a new energy policy, the three main objectives of which are competitiveness, sustainable
development and security of supply. It is in this wider context of an integrated and coherent energy policy and, in
particular, of promoting renewable energy sources that the Commission is presenting this Biomass Action Plan.
B3.1.5: Time to market

The BioAlgaeSorb work plan is designed to yield proven prototype systems and processes by the end of 3 years. It is
anticipated that the finalised BioAlgaeSorb technologies will be ready for market 12-18 months after completion of the
project, providing commercialisation opportunities to the participants via both direct sales and license agreements on
IP protected products and processes.
The time to market will be expedited by rigorous early planning and project-long monitoring of:
Customer needs and stability in product requirements or specifications;
A well characterized, optimized product development process;
A realistic project plan based on this process;
Application and management of appropriate resources (financial, infrastructural and personnel)
B3.2: Appropriateness of Measures Envisaged for the Dissemination and/or

Exploitation of Project Results, and Management of Intellectual Property
B3.2.1: Project Results and Intellectual Property Rights
The partnership has developed an Exploitation Strategy for the management of knowledge, intellectual property
rights and of it‘s inter-relation with the various innovation-related activities planned. Details of the organization of
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Knowledge Management are further described below.
Clarification of terminology:
67
BioAlgaeSorb
Term
Background The information held by participants prior to the accession to the Grant Agreement, as well
as copyright or other IP rights pertaining to such information, the application for which has
been filed prior to their accession to the Grant Agreement, and which is needed for carrying
out the project work or for using results.
Foreground Means the results (including information, inventions, databases, software etc.) whether or
not they can be protected, which are generated by the project. It also includes all related IP
rights (copyright, designs, patents, plant variety rights and similar forms of protection).
Protection Refers to having the project results covered by IP rights. This sometimes implies for the
partners to play an active role (by applying for the registration of certain IP rights, like
patents, utility models, trade marks etc, or by establishing necessary measures in case they
wish to protect their results as trade secrets). Sometimes though protection would come
automatically, from the mere fact of creation of certain works, as it happens with copyright,
or from certain acts, such as the unregistered Community design right.
The following principles are applied with regard to exploitation of results from the BioAlgaeSorb project:
All partners keep the ownership to their own background established at the time of the project start
Background owned by the SME-AGs, SMEs and RTD performers, which is or will be found necessary for
the implementation of the project, will be granted royalty free to the partners with regards to project
execution purposes.
Post project, individual SME-AGs and SMEs partners will grant access to background from RTD partners in
order to use exploit their foreground from the project on a royalty free basis
Post project, individual SME-AGs and SME partners will grant access to background from other SME-AG
and SME partners in order to exploit their foreground from the project on fair and reasonable conditions.
Swansea University, Teknologisk Institutt, Durham University, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research and
University of Florence are expressly prevented from owning any of the resulting foreground from the
project..
The SME AGs and SMEs keep full ownership of foreground and reimburse at a 100 % the invoice for the
RTD subcontracted to the RTD performers
The RTD performers can use the results for further research (non commercial exploitation) at fair and
reasonable conditions if those results are not identified as confidential and after obtaining approval of the
SMEs. The RTD performers can publish the results after obtaining the agreement of the SME partners.
There are no existing anticipated business agreements which may impose limitations on the subsequent exploitation
or information or inventions generated as a result of the project.
This will ensure that the project results will belong to the SME associations and that they will have access to needed
background knowledge.
According the principles of the Research for SME Associations, the knowledge arising from work carried out under
the project is the joint property of NoBio, AEBIOM, BTAand the SME-core group. The protection and management of
the knowledge, IPR dissemination and exploitation activity has been assigned to the SME Association partner
AEBIOM who will take on the responsibility of securing any IPR generated, as well as preparing and updating the
dissemination and exploitation plan.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jossart has agreed to take on the responsibility as IPR/knowledge management and will head the
IPR/Knowledge Management Sub-Committee. The role and responsibily of this committee include:
Responsibility for all innovation related activities, including dissemination, exploitation, protection of
foreground.
68
BioAlgaeSorb
Responsibility for preparing and updating ―Plan for Use and Dissemonation‖.
Consulting with and be assisted especially by NoBio and BTA and will also confer with core group SMEs
TheIPR/Knowledge manager will manage the innovation related activities and co-ordinate the following issues:
Ownership of the results by the SME-AGs
Protection of the foreground and developed intellectual property
Absorption of the results by the participants
Discussions between the participants to determine the Exploitation agreement.
Dissemination of the knowledge beyond the consortium
Creation of preliminary (18 month) and final (36 month) Dissemination Use Plans (DUP)
Activities promoting the exploitation of the results
Transfer of best practices for the early use and exploitation of technologies
Mr. Jean-Marc Jossart, is agronomist (university UCL, Belgium, 1989) and Secretary General of AEBIOM. He will be
assisted by Mrs Edita Vagonyte, also working av AEBIOM.
The RTDs are expressly prevented from owning or exploiting any of the resulting IPR from the project.
The IPR/Knowledge Manager will report to the Managament Board. For further information regarding the project
management structure and procedure, we refer to point B.2.1.1.
A consortium agreement will be prepared and signed by all project partners before the grant agreement will be
signed. The consortium, led by the IPR/Knowledge Manager, will develop an Exploitation Strategy-to be approved by
the management board- as part of the consortium agreement for the dissemination and exploitation of all the results
of the work within the consortium and, in principle, to companies outside the consortium after an initial period of
confidentiality. Through the exploitation plan, each partner has a clear and unique role to play in the supply chain, its
development and the promotion and protection of the results from the BioAlgaeSorb project.
.After the project period, the exploitatioj of the results from the BioAlgaeSorb project will continue, especially with
regards to further commercialisation. This process has already begun through concept developments and project
market validation work carried by the partners within their existing customer base and activity performed in the
projects as part of the Demonstration Activity and Innovation Related activity during the project period. The
consortium expects to engage the services of a European Patent Attorney. All of these issues will be managed
through the Consortium Agreement. WorkPackage 7, Innovation Related Activities, specifies the activities that will be
carried in the project to prepare and file outline patents.
69
BioAlgaeSorb Call
FP7-SME-2008-2
Table 3.2.2. Project Results (Including Knowledge) to be acquired by the SME-IAG and SME participants
70
B.3.2.2 Dissemination and Use

The foreground from the BioAlgaeSorb will be disseminated to the public. General public and experts in the shellfish and
technology area will be informed of the results of the research work.
Dissemination Activities: It is extremely important that market pull is further stimulated. To assist in this, the use of the
technology pilot plant will be extended, after the end of the project, as a vehicle for pan-European technology transfer and
dissemination. Initially, this will involve members of our End User Interest Group.
The Management of foreground, IPR and Dissemination activities, has been assigned to SME-AG partner AEBIOM. They will
be responsible for coordinating all innovation related activities, including dissemination, exploitation, protection of foreground
and will be responsible for preparing and updating ―Plan for Use and Dissemination‖. AEBIOM will closely consult
and be assisted especially by NoBio and BTA as well ast the SME participants.
Dissemination and training are key elements to the success of the project and to ensure optimal use of the project results. We
have planned significant dissemination activities from the very start of the project in order to raise public participation and
awareness, and have included demonstration (―take-up‖) actions. All partners will play an active role in technology
transfer and dissemination, promoting the technology development to customers, and through networks of industrial contacts.
The industrial partners will explore several different dissemination routes to reach parties which will have interest in the know-
how and results from the BioAlgaeSorb project both in relevant sectors and especially the bio-energy sector. A preliminary plan
for the use and dissemination of the foreground has been made which includes the following activities and methods:
Establishing a project web-page where presentation of the project and relevant results are presented and updated as
the project progresses. The project web page does consist of an open part (presenting results and new to the broader
public and an internal part to be accessed by username and password by the project partners. NoBio as coordinator
will be responsible for the update of the open and public part of the project web page and an update will be made
minimum every 3 months, assisted by the RTD performers. The project web page is to be established within month 3
of the project. The project web site will function as an information hub for a wider distribution of foreground and public
results and as a central point of report and news to the consortium vice a secure portal.
To transfer foreground from the RTD performers to the SME-AGs and SME participants through technology
transfer events and interactions. The RTD performers are responsible for communicating project results to
SME participants via the closed part of project web site not more than 1 month after actual work is
performed. In addition, the project meetings will include know-how and technology transfer events presenting
the project results to the consortium.
Further promotion through case study demonstrations and Best Practice presentations initially at SME AGs
and SME Core partner‘s web
sites.
To broadcast the benefits of the developed MusselsAlive technology and foreground beyond the consortium to
potential industrial user communities through the SME AGs and SMEs participation at Work-shops and Trade shows.
SME-AGs and SME beneficiaries will exploit their network of member organizations and industrial contacts
respectively
RTDs will be responsible for validating the technology development on close cooperation with the SME-AGs and
SMEs. Case study presentations will be prepared for use of the BioAlgaeSorb results. Accordingly, the researchers
participating in the project will be encouraged to make presentations for public and research papers, although followed
by close monitoring from the SMEs ensuring that rules regarding confidentiality are adhered to.
RTDs will publish consortium approved papers presenting key results of the BioAlgaeSorb project.. All such
publications will be coordinated and approved by the SME partners.
The project achievements will be presented through participation in the relevant exhibition. In addition, initiatives will be
made in order to present project results in seminars and conferences held during these events for the bioenergy and
aquaculture sector respectively.
71
With regards to the bio-energy and aquaculture sector respectively, the following table identify the main activies:
Sector Activity Responsibe

Activities with regards to dissemination of results relevant for the bioenergy
sector , especially use of microalgae to biofuel include:
Presentation in annual conferances of AEBIOM
Arrangement of Annial Workshop focusing om microalgae to biofuel
including preparation of ―Position Paper/Roadmap‖. AEBIOM,
Bio-energy assisted by
Regulary newsletters distributed to the AEBIOM 33 national
members and further distribution to the national AEBIOM members NoBio
to the network of 4000 enterprises
Short information in AEBIOM quaterly newsletter
Presentation on the annual meetings of the 33 national members of
Activities AEBIOM.
with regards to dissemination of results relevant for the aquaculture
industry, especially use of waste for bio-algae production include:
Participation in key events including the annual conferances og and
exhibutions of Aqua-Nor, European aquacultrue society and Word
Aquaculture society. British Trout
Aquaculture
Publication in relevant journals including FishFarming Inernational Association(BTA)
Aquaculture Today, Aquaculture Europe and Aquaculture Magazine
Establish cooperation with Aqua TT.
Further disseminatin through the memebrship of BTA in the
European Aquaculture Associaiton FEAP
All publication material will be controlled by agreement from the SME-AGs and the SME core group to ensure uniformity and
confidentiality of public release and all publications will be identified as results of a research project which is supported by the
EC (FP7-SME).
All publications will be identified as results of a research project which is supported by the EC (FP7-SME).
Through our consortium partners and the network of the SME-AGs, especially the 33 national members of AEBIOM as well as
the network of the SME partners the BioAlgaeSorb has a good starting point for reaching markets in all of Europe. These will all
be used to network the results and provide dissemination.
Validation of technology and absorption of project results

The BioAlgaeSorb results will be validated all through the development work by the technology and process development in
WPs 2 – 5 Susequent testing is performed and the RTDs will send each other testing results in the different RTD
WorkPackages and the progress and interaction between the different WorkPackages are monitored through the activities in
WP6.
Training and Demonstration is included in the WP, wherein key personnel from the end-users will be educated and trained on
the benefits of the results from the BioAlgaeSorb project. In this way they will be fully equipped to further bring the
BioAlgaeSorn results into use.
72
Section B4: Ethical Issues
Table 4.1: Ethical Issues Table
Research on Human Embryo / Foetus YES
I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL YES
Research on Humans YES
Privacy YES
Research on Animals YES
Research Involving Developing Countries YES
Dual Use YES

73
Section B5: Consideration of Gender Aspects

Equality of women and men is already recognised as a fundamental principle of the Amsterdam Treaty and one of the
objectives and tasks of the Community. Moreover, a specific mission is conferred to the Community to mainstream the gender
dimension in all its activities. According to this policy, all partners involved in the project do recognize that gender disp arities
and inequalities are important barriers to development. Therefore, they assume the commitment to facilitate equitable
participation in all the activities developed in the project at all responsibilities levels. Analysing the gender dimension has far-
reaching implications for policy-making and preventive strategies. Gender analysis refers to ―the socio-cultural
construction of roles and relationships between men and women‖ rather than being only a ―women‘s issue‖. One
way of viewing women‘s involvement in development and closely linked with gender analysis is the consideration of
women, their needs and concerns in developmental decisions, processes and mechanisms. In this project we will enhance
the inclusion of women and rendering them visible in the development processes. Furthermore, special attention to
gender issues will be paid in the project‘s dissemination activities, to encourage the involved and related sectors to
address the gender disparities and inequalities.
Women in Engineering - Considerable efforts have been undertaken by the EC to research the role of women in engineering
and to encourage their participation – particularly. From this perspective, it is remarkable that all the participants in the
BioAlgaeSorb project have adopted an equal opportunities policy for recruitment. Indeed, at least one of them, TI, has gone
further and adopted the recommendations of the EC‘s review on women in research for improving the environment
for women in engineering.
74
References
Adamsson, M, (2000) Potential use of human urine by greenhouse culturing of microalgae (Scenedesmus acuminatus),
zooplankton (Daphnia magna) and tomatoes (Lycopersicon). Ecological Engineering 16 243-254.
Amann JM, Kanniche M, Bouallou C, (2009) Natural gas combined cycle power plant modified into an O2/CO2 cycle for CO2
capture. Energy Conversion and Management 50, 510-521
Andrade, CR de, Zaparoli EL. A survey of the Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies from power plant flue gases.
http://www.bibl.ita.br/xencita/Artigos/62.pdf
Aquatic Species Program—biodiesel from algae. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO;
Report NREL/TP-580–24190.
Avagyan AB, (2008) A, contribution to global sustainable development: inclusion of microalgae and their biomass in production
and bio cycles. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy 10, 313-317
Borges MT, Morais A, Castro PML, (2003) Performance of outdoor seawater treatment system for recirculation in an intensive
turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) farm. Aquaculture International 11, 557-570.
Maria-Teresa Borges1,2,∗, Patr´ıcia Silva1,2, L´ıdia Moreira1,2 & Rosa Soares1,2 Integration of consumer-targeted
microalgal production with marine fish effluent biofiltration – a strategy for mariculture sustainability Journal of Applied
Phycology (2005)
17: 187–197
Blancheton JP (2000) Developments in recirculation systems for mediterranean fish species. Aquacult. Eng 22: 17–31.
Borowitzka, MA, (2005) Culturing microalgae in outdoor ponds. In, Andersen, RA (ed.) Algal Culturing
Techniques: pp 205-218. Academic Press.
Carvalho AP, Meireles LA, Malcata FX, (2006) Microalgal reactors: A review of enclosed system designs and performances.
Biotechnology Progress 22, 1490–1506.
Cao L, Wang W, Yang Y, Yang C, Yuan Z, Xiong S, Diana J (2007): Environmental Impact of Aquaculture and
Countermeasures to Aquaculture Pollution in China. Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 452–462
Chaumont D, (1993) Biotechnology of algal biomass production – a review of systems for outdoor mass-culture. Journal of
Applied Phycology. 5, 593-604.
Chisti Y, (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances. 25, 294-306.
Csordas A,, Wang J-K, (2004) An integrated photobioreactor and foam fractionation unit for the growth and harvest of
Chaetoceros spp. in open systems. Aquacultural Engineering 30, 15–30
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) - Solicitation BAA08-07 - BioFuels - Cellulosic and Algal Feedstocks
http://www.darpa.mil/STO/solicitations/baa08-07/index.html
DEFRA (2002) Ammonia in the UK. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DEFRA Publications, London.
www.defra.gov.uk 88 pages.
Luz E. de-Bashan, Juan-Pablo Hernandez, Taylor Morey, Yoav Bashan Microalgae growth-promoting bacteria as ‗‗helpers‘‘
for
microalgae: a novel approach for removing ammonium and phosphorus from municipal wastewater *Water Research 38 (2004)
466–474
Del Campo JA, Garcia-Gonzalez M, Guerrero MG, (2007) Outdoor cultivation of microalgae for carotenoid production: current
state and perspectives. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 74,1163-1174
75
De Godos I, Gonzalez C, Becares E, et al (2009) Simultaneous nutrients and carbon removal during pretreated swine slurry
degradation in a tubular biofilm photobioreactor. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 82187-194
Brett Digman and Dong-Shik Kim Review: Alternative Energy from Food Processing Wastes Environmental Progress (Vol.27,
No.4) 524 – 537
Michele Greque de Morais, Jorge Alberto Vieira Costa * Isolation and selection of microalgae from coal fired thermoelectric
power plant for biofixation of carbon dioxide Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 2169–2173
Doucha J, Straka F, Livansky K, (2005) Utilization of flue gas for cultivation of microalgae (Chlorella sp.) in an outdoor open
thin-layer photobioreactor. Journal of Applied Phycology. 17(5) 403-412.
DUDA, AM 1993 ADDRESSING NONPOINT SOURCES OF WATER-POLLUTION MUST BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL

PRIORITY 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONF ON DIFFUSE ( NONPOINT ) POLLUTION : SOURCES, PREVENTION, IMPACT,
ABATEMENT, SEP 19-24, 1993 CHICAGO IL WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 28 1-11
Eriksen NT, (2008) The technology of microalgal culturing. Biotechnology Letters 30, 1525-1536.
euobserver.com
Europa report. http://europa.eu/index_en.htm
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2003. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference document on best available
techniques for intensive rearing of poultry and pigs. European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau Sevilla,
Spain. A full list of BREF notes for each sector is available from the official website at: http://eippcb.jrc.es/
European Commission, 2008. Agricultural Statistics, Main Results, 2006-2007. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. 147pp.
EUROSTAT, 2007. Europe in Figures: Eurostat yearbook 2006/07. European Commission 373 p.
Chapter 10, Environment and Chapter 11, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Available on line:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
FAO, 2000. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, FAOSTAT datasets:
http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture
Farrell A, Brandt A, Arons S (2008) The Race for 21(st) Century Auto Fuels. Physics of Sustainable Energy. 1044, 235-250
Gonzalez C, Marciniak J, Villaverde S, Garcia-Encina PA, Munoz R, (2008) Microalgae-based processes for the biodegradation
of pretreated piggery wastewaters. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 80, 891-898
Gordon JM, Polle JE, (2007) Ultrahigh bioproductivity from algae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 76, 969-975.
E.M. Grima, E.H. Belarbi, F.G.A. FernÃ¡ndez, A.R. Medina, Y. Chisti, Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabolites: process
options and economics, Biotechnol.Adv. 20 (2003) 491–515.
Halide, H; Stigebrandt, A; Rehbein, M, et al. 2009. Developing a decision support system for sustainable cage aquaculture
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE 24 6 694-702
Harel M, Place AR, (2003) Heterotrophic production of marine algae for aquaculture. In, Richmond A (ed.) Handbook of
microalgal culture: biotechnology and applied phycology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodaifa, G; Martinez, ME; Sanchez, S (2008) Use of industrial wastewater from olive-oil extraction for biomass production of
Scenedesmus obliquus Bioresource Technology 99, 1111-1117
Hossain ABMS, Salleh A. Biodiesel fuel production from algae as renewable energy. Am J Biochem Biotech 2008;4(3):250–4.
Horiuchi J-I, Ohba I, Tada, K, Kobayashi M, Kanno T, Kishimoto M, (2003) Effective cell harvesting of the halotolerant
microalga Dunaliella tertiolecta with pH Control. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 95 412-415.
76
International energy annual, 2006
Kadam KL, (2002) Environmental implications of power generation via microalgae cofiring. Energy 27, 905-922
Knuckey RM, Brown MR, Dion R, Frampton DMF, (2006) Production of microalgal concentrates by
flocculation and their assessment as aquaculture feeds. Aquaculture Engineering 35 300-313
Lee SJ, Kim SB, Kim JE, (1998) Effects of harvesting method and growth stage on the flocculation of the green alga
Botryococcus braunii. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 27, 14-18.
Li, FY; Wichmann, K; Otterpohl, R (2009) Review of the technological approaches for grey water treatment and reuses. Science
of the total Environment 407 3439-3449.
Lindahl O., Hart R., Hernroth B., Kollberg S., Loo L.-O., Olrog L., Rehnstam-Holm A.-S., Svensson
J,. Svensson S. and Syversen U. 2005. Improving marine water quality by mussel farming – A
profitable measure for Swedish society. Ambio, Vol. 34, No. 2: 131-138.
Maeda K, Owadai, Kimura, M*. 0mata K, Karube, I (1995) CO2 fixation from the flue gas on coal-fired thermal power plant by
microalgae. Energy Conversion Management 36, 717-720
Masojidek, J; Sergejevova, M; Rottnerova, K; Jirka, V; Korecko, J; Kopecky, J; Zat'kova, I; Torzillo, G; Stys,D (2009) A two-
stage solar photobioreactor for cultivation of microalgae based on solar concentrators. Journal of Applied Phycology 21, 55-63.
Martinez, ME; Sanchez, S; Jimenez, JM, Yousfi El Muñoz L. (2000) Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from urban wastewater
by the microalga Scenedesmus obliquus. Bioresource Technology 73, 263-272.
Metaxa, E; Deviller, G; Pagand, P, et al. (2006) High rate algal pond treatment for water reuse in a marine fish recirculation
system: Water purification and fish health. Aquaculture 252, 92-101.
Molina Grima E, Belarbi E-H, Acein Fernandes FG, Medina R, Christi Y. (2003) Recovery of microlgal
biomass and metabolites: process options and economics. Biotechnology Advances 20 491-515
Mulbry W, Kondrad S, Pizarro C, Kebede-Westheard E (2008) Treatment of dairy manure effluent using freshwater algae: Algal
productivity and recovery of manure nutrients using pilot-scale algal turf scrubbers. Bioresource Technology 99, 8137-8142
Mulbry W, Kondrad S, Buyer J (2008) Treatment of dairy and swine manure effluents using freshwater algae: fatty acid content
and composition of algal biomass at different manure loading rates. Journal of Applied Phycology 20, 1079-1085
Muller-Feuga A, Moal J, Kaas R, (2003) The microalgae of aquaculture. In, McEvoy, LA; Stottrup JG (eds.)Live Feeds in Marine
Aquaculture: pp 206-252. Wiley-Blackwell.
Neori, A; Ragg, NLC; Shpigel, M (1998) The integrated culture of seaweed, abalone, fish and clams in modular intensive land-
based systems: II. Performance and nitrogen partitioning within an abalone (Haliotis tuberculata) and macroalgae culture
system. Aquaculture Engineering 17, 215-239.
Laliberté G, Proulx D, De Pauw N, De La Noüe J (1994) Algal technology in wastewater treatment. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih.
Ergebn. Limnol. 42: 283–302.
Lasse M. Olsen1, Marianne Holmer2, Yngvar Olsen1,3 Final report, February 2008 Perspectives of nutrient emission from fish
aquaculture in coastal waters Literature review with evaluated state of knowledge FHF project no. 542014
Fangyue Li a,⁎, Knut Wichmann a, Ralf Otterpohl (2009) Review of the technological approaches for grey water treatment and
reuses bScience of the Total Environment 407 3439–3449
Patil, V; Tran, KQ; Giselrod, HR, (2008) Towards sustainable production of biofuels from microalgae. International Journal of
Molecular Sciences. 9, 1188-1195.
77
Pinto, G; Pollio, A; Previtera, L, Stanzione M, Temussi F (2003) Removal of low molecular weight phenols from olive oil mill
wastewater using microalgae. Biotechnology Letters 25, 1657-1659
Pulz O, Gross W, (2004) Valuable products from biotechnology of microalgae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 65 (635-
648)
Preisig HR, Andersen, RA, (2005) Historical review of algal culturing techniques. In, Andersen, RA (ed.) Algal Culturing
Techniques: pp 1-12. Academic Press.
Research and Markets http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research
Rossignol N, Vandanjon, L, Jaouen P, Quemeneur F (1999) Membrane technology for the continous separation
microalgae/culture medium: compared performances cross flow microfiltration and ultrafiltration
Aquaculture Engineering 20 191-208
Rossi N, Jaouen P, Lentilhomme , and Petit I, (2004) Harvesting of cyanobacterium arthospira platensis
using organic filtration membranes. Transactions of IChemE Food and Bioprocessing 82 244-250
Sarmidi Amin ―Review on biofuel oil and gas production processes from microalgae‖ Energy Conversion and
Management 50
(2009) 1834–1840
O. Schneider*, V. Sereti, E.H. Eding, J.A.J. (2005) Verreth Analysis of nutrient flows in integrated intensive aquaculture
systems Aquacultural Engineering 32 379–401
Schuenhoff A, Mata, L, Santos R, (2006) The tetrasporophyte of Asparagopsis armata as a novel seaweed biofilter.
Aquaculture 252, 3-11
Sheehan J, Dunahay T, Benemann J, Roessler P, (1998) A look back at the U.S. Department of Energy's
Spolaore P, Joannis-Cassan C, Duran E et al (2006) Commercial application of microalgae. Journal of Bioscience and
Bioengineering 101, 87-96
Stevenson RAA, Sarma SSS, Nandini S 1998 Population dynamics of Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera : Brachionidae) in
waste water from food-processing industry in Mexico. REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL Volume: 46 Issue: 3 Pages:
595-600
Stott, D 2009Environmental enforcement in the UK JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 11 470-474
A. Sukenik, D. Bilanovic, G. Shelef, Flocculation of microalgae in Brackish and SeaWaters, Biomass 15 (1988) 187–199.
Sunita, M; Rao, DG (2003) Bioconversion of mango processing waste to fish-feed by microalgae isolated from fruit processing
industrial effluents. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research 62, 344-347
The information centre, Scottish Parliament 1999

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn99-15.pdf
Tam, N. F. Y. & Wong, Y. S. (1990). The comparison of growth and nutrient removal efficiency of Chlorella pyrenoidosa in
settled and activated sewages. Environ.Pollut., 65, 93-108.
Tarlan, E; Dilek, FB; Yetis, U (2002) Effectiveness of algae in the treatment of a wood-based pulp and paper industry
wastewater. Bioresource Technology 84, 1-5
Travieso, L; Benitez, F; Sanchez, E, Borja R, Leon M, Raposo F Rincon B (2008) Assessment of a microalgae pond for post-
treatment of the effluent from an anaerobic fixed bed reactor treating distillery wastewater Environmental Technology 29 985-
982.
L. Traviesoa, F. Benı´tez b, E. Sa´ ncheza, R. Borjaa,∗, A. Martıńc, M.F. 2006. Batch mixed culture of Chlorella
vulgaris using settled and diluted piggery waste Colmenarejo d ecological engineering 2 8 158–165
78
Travieso L, Benitez F, Sanchez E et al, (2006) Production of biomass (algae-bacteria) by using a mixture of settled swine and
sewage as substrate. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A-Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental
Engineering. 41, 415-429
Troell M, Halling C, Neori A, Chopin T, Buschmann AH, Kautsky N, Yarish C (2003) Integrated mariculture: Asking the right
questions. Aquaculture 226: 69–90.
Tusseau-Vuillemin,MH 2001 Do food processing industries contribute to the eutrophication of aquatic systems? Workshop on
Assessing and Controlling Industrial Impacts on the Aquatic Environment with Reference to Food Processing
MAR 28-30, 2000 BUDAPEST HUNGARY ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 50 143-152
Valderrama, LT; Del Campo, CM; Rodriguez, CM, et al. 2002 Treatment of recalcitrant wastewater from ethanol and citric acid
production using the microalga Chlorella vulgaris and the macrophyte Lemna minuscula WATER RESEARCH 36 4185-
4192
Van der Zwaan B, Smekens K, (2009) CO2 Capture and Storage with Leakage in an Energy-Climate Model. Environmental
Model Assessments 14, 135-148
http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/Biofixation.htm
Vandanjon L, Jaouen P, Rossignol N, Quemeneur F, Robert J –M, (1999) Cocnetration and desalting by
membrane processes of a natrual pigment produced by a marine diatom Haslea ostrearia Simonsen. Journal of Biotechnology
70 393-402
Wang J-K (2003) Conceptual design of a microalgae-based recirculating oyster and shrimp system. Aquacult. Eng. 28: 37–46.
Wang CY, Fu CC, Liu YC, (2007) Effects of using light-emitting diodes on the cultivation of Spirulina
platensis. Biochemical Engineering Journal 37, 21-15.
Wang B, Li YQ, Wu N, (2008) CO2 bio-mitigation using microalgae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 79, 707-718.
Yamasaki, A 2003. An overview of CO2 mitigation options for global warming - Emphasizing CO2 sequestration options
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING OF JAPAN 36 361-375
Zhang ED, Wang B, Wang QH, Zhang S, Zhao B, (2008) Ammonia-nitrogen and orthophosphate removal by immobilized
Scenedesmus sp isolated from municipal wastewater for potential use in tertiary treatment Bioresource Technology 99 3787-
3793
Zijffers JWF, Janssen M, Tramper J, Wijffels RH, (2008) Design process of an area-efficient
photobioreactor. Marine Biotechnology 10, 404-415.
G.C. Zittelli, L. Rodolfi, N. Biondi, M.R. Tredici, Productivity and photosynthetic efficiency of outdoor cultures of Tetraselmis
suecica in annular columns, Aquaculture 261 (2006) 932–943.
Electronic references
http://www.global-green house-warming.com/industry-CO2-emissions.html
http://www.emerging-
markets.com/biodiesel/pdf/BiofuelsInternational_AlgaeInvestmentTrends_November2008_W illThurmond.pd
f
(http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/zemke.pdf)
(Networks, 2009) http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/Biofixation.htm
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:JPjV6HMSm1AJ:www.sepa.org.uk/land/guidance.aspx+slurry+BOD&cd=5&hl=en&ct=cl
nk&gl=uk
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/ghg-country-profiles/tp-report-country-profiles/eu-27-greenhouse-gas-profile-
summary-1990-2020.pdf.
79

Enabling European Smes To Remediate Wastes, Reduce GHG Emissions and Produce Biofuels Via Microalgae Cultivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enabling European Smes To Remediate Wastes, Reduce GHG Emissions and Produce Biofuels Via Microalgae Cultivation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enabling European Smes To Remediate Wastes, Reduce GHG Emissions and Produce Biofuels Via Microalgae Cultivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BioAlgaeSorb Call FP7-SME-2008-2

Enabling European SMEs to

Table 1.1: Application Identifier

Table 1.2: List of Participants

B1.1: Sound Concept and Quality of Objectives

The overall aims of the project are to:

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Waste Water Treatment

B1.1.3: The Scale of GHG and Liquid Waste Emissions

Power Generation (Fossil Fuels and Biomass)

Typical production Number of Member Quantity

Municipal Waste Water

B1.1.4: The Role of Microalgal Biotechnology in Effluent Mitigation and Valorisation

Feasibility of Microalgae Mass Cultivation

Feasibility of Biofuel Production from Microalgae

Feasibility of Waste Remediation Using Microalgae

Feasibility of Harvesting Microalgae on Large Scale

Feasibility of a Microalgae-based Biorefinery

Feasibility of Optimising and Evaluating New Processes

B1.1.5: Markets of Microalgae Products

Table 1.1 – summary of microalgal product markets

Emerging Microalgae Markets

B1.1.6: Relevance and Improving Competitiveness of SME-AGs

Participating SME –AG’s

Participating SME Technology Providers

Benefits of the Project Partnership

B1.2: Innovative Character in Relation to State of the Art

B1.2.2: Effluent Remediation - Current State of the Art

Power Generation (Fossil Fuels and Biomass) and Heavy Industry

Project innovations, effluent remediation:

B1.2.3: Microalgae Production Technologies

Closed Photobioreactor (PBR) Systems

Open Ponds and Raceways

Figure 1.2. Illustration of an open raceway system (Tredici, 2009) and

Project innovations, microalgae culture systems:

B1.2.4: Microalgal Cell Harvesting

Project innovations, microalgae harvesting methods:

B1.2.5: Microalgae Upgrading

Project innovations, microalgae-based products:

B1.3: Contribution to Advancement of Knowledge / Technological Progress

Research and Technological Development Activities

Table 1.3: Risk Description for the Project

B1.4.2: Timing of Work Packages and their Components

Table 1.4: Timing of Work Packages and Their Components

WP 5 Thermo-chemical Conversions of Microalgae Biomass UFL D D M D

WP 9 Consortium Management NoBio D

B1.4.3: Work Package Descriptions

Table 1.3a: Work Package List

Table 1.3b: Deliverables List

Table 1.3c: Work Package Description

Task 1.1 Physico-chemical Requirements for Optimal Microalgae Production

Task 1.2 Microalgae Harvesting Processes

Task 1.3 Microalgae Biomass Conversion Processes

Work Package No. WP 2 Start Date or Start Event Month 4

Task 2.5 Modelling Approaches for Technical Evaluations

Task 2.6 Prototype Development and Testing

Work Package No. WP 3 Start Date or Start Event Month 6

Task 3.3 Characterisation of Microalgae Concentrates and Their Preservation

Task 3.4 Investigation of Hybrid Harvesting Technologies: Electro-Flocculation