Next Article in Journal
Bandgap Engineering of CIGS: Active Control of Composition Gradient
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Optimal Economic Proportion of Medium- and Long-Term Contracts and Spot Trading Under the Market-Oriented Renewable Energy Context
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biowaste to Energy and Value-Added Products—Challenges and Opportunities
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Carbon Dioxide Bio-Sequestration and Biomass Production for Energy Purposes During C. vulgaris Cultivation Powered by Real Exhaust Gases from a Municipal Thermal Power Plant

by
Marcin Zieliński
1,
Łukasz Barczak
1,
Marta Kisielewska
1,
Alona Vdovychenko
2,
Joanna Kazimierowicz
3 and
Marcin Dębowski
1,*
1
Department of Environment Engineering, Faculty of Geoengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Str. Oczapowskiego 5, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Department of Bioenergy, Bioinformatics and Environmental Biotechnology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biotechnics, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Beresteiskyi Ave., 37, 03056 Kyiv, Ukraine
3
Department of Water Supply and Sewage Systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Str. Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(23), 6086; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236086
Submission received: 24 October 2025 / Revised: 15 November 2025 / Accepted: 19 November 2025 / Published: 21 November 2025

Abstract

This study assessed the potential of Chlorella vulgaris to biosequester carbon dioxide (CO2) and produce microalgal biomass using real exhaust gases from a municipal heating plant. Experiments were conducted in vertical tubular photobioreactors (V-PBRs) in three series: a control with atmospheric air as the CO2 source (S1), exhaust gases containing SOx (S2), and fully desulphurised exhaust gases (S3). The highest productivity of C. vulgaris was recorded in S3, where 2120 ± 123 mg VS/L was achieved with an exponential growth rate of 281.0 ± 16.2 mg VS/L·d. The presence of SOx in the gases caused the culture to die off as early as day 8 of the cultivation cycle, resulting in a decrease in biomass concentration and acidification of the culture medium. In S2, compared to the other experimental series, significantly lower organic carbon, lipid, and sugar contents were also observed in the microalgal biomass. However, protein content remained stable regardless of the CO2 source tested. Carbon Dioxide Utilisation Efficiency (CO2UE) was 53.8% (S1), 24.1% (S2), and 41.4% (S3), respectively. The results indicate that the presence of SOx in exhaust gases negatively affects the growth and survival of C. vulgaris, while its removal improves both biomass productivity and CO2 sequestration efficiency. The research demonstrates the potential for integrating microalgae cultivation with industrial CO2 emission management.

1. Introduction

The ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, resulting primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, presents one of the greatest challenges for contemporary energy and climate policy. Strategic documents such as the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement clearly indicate the need to achieve climate neutrality within the coming decades [1]. Achieving this objective requires the implementation of effective carbon capture, storage, and utilisation (CCUS) technologies [2]. Conventional methods such as amine absorption, membrane separation, and mineral carbonation, although technically advanced, are often associated with high operating costs and significant energy consumption [3].
In this context, CO2 biosequestration using microalgae is a particularly attractive alternative, as it combines emission reduction with the simultaneous production of biomass, offering valuable functional and economic benefits [4]. Unlike classical CCUS technologies, in which CO2 is only captured and deposited in geological formations, microalgae bind this gas in stable organic compounds (proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates), which can be stored long-term in biomass [5]. Depending on further development, this biomass can be used as a substrate for the production of liquid biofuels, biogas, or biohydrogen [6]; as a raw material in biotechnological processes [7]; for the production of high-value-added bioproducts [8]; or for the creation of modern construction and building materials [9]. In scenarios where microalgae products are used in non-energy sectors, including composite materials, organic fertilisers, or feed additives, CO2 remains removed from the carbon cycle for longer [10]. The facts presented above make biosequestration a viable element of a sustainable CO2 storage strategy within CCUS.
Numerous studies have shown that microalgae, in addition to CO2 assimilation, are capable of binding other gaseous pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx), commonly present in waste gases from power plants [11,12]. This mechanism would further enhance the attractiveness of microalgae technologies for reducing multicomponent atmospheric emissions. However, research results are inconclusive. Some reports indicate a beneficial effect of low SO2 and NOx concentrations on biomass growth [11,13,14], while others demonstrate a strong inhibition of photosynthetic processes and a reduction in culture efficiency [15,16]. A significant limitation of current knowledge is that most studies to date have been conducted on a laboratory or pilot scale, most often using synthetic gas mixtures [17,18]. Full-scale experiments integrating microalgae cultures with real energy installations are still rare. The lack of such studies significantly limits the ability to reliably assess the technology’s effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and potential for implementation in industrial settings.
In studies on CO2 biosequestration performed under real operating conditions, the choice of microalgal strains with high tolerance to environmental variability and flue gas impurities is crucial [19]. These organisms must demonstrate both efficient CO2 assimilation and adaptability to elevated levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), variable pH, and temperature. From a technological perspective, species used in industrial biosequestration systems should also maintain stable growth over time, show predictable productivity, and have well-defined physiological characteristics [20]. Chlorella vulgaris fulfils these requirements. It is a eurybiontic and well-studied species, widely recognised for its robustness and versatility in environmental biotechnology [21]. This microalga tolerates CO2 concentrations up to 15–20%, exhibits rapid growth, and efficiently assimilates carbon even in the presence of gaseous pollutants. Its ability to adapt to changing light, temperature, and medium conditions makes C. vulgaris a model organism for evaluating real flue gas utilisation in biosequestration systems [22]. The species also offers a favourable biochemical profile, with biomass rich in proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates, suitable for renewable energy production such as anaerobic digestion and liquid biofuel synthesis [21,23]. Owing to its stable growth, extensive literature background, and reproducible results across pilot- and semi-technical-scale studies, C. vulgaris is considered a reference species for integrating CO2 biosequestration with energy biomass production using real exhaust gases from municipal heating plants [24].
Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the potential of Chlorella vulgaris microalgae to biosequesteration CO2 under real-world conditions, using exhaust gases from an existing municipal heating plant. Two experimental variants were analysed: (i) a culture fed with gases containing SO2 at concentrations compliant with applicable emission standards, and (ii) a culture fed with fully desulphurised exhaust gases. The studies verified the effect of low SO2 concentrations on the growth dynamics and stability of C. vulgaris cultures, microalgae biomass production efficiency, and CO2 sequestration efficiency. The experimental results allow for a better assessment of the realistic possibilities of integrating microalgae technologies with commercial energy production and indicate their role as an innovative path within CCUS systems, combining emission reduction with carbon storage in biomass and the potential for further energy and industrial use.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Organisation of Experimental Work

Experimental work was carried out at the Municipal District Heating Company (MDHC, Olsztyn, Poland), while analytical work took place at the laboratories of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. The study was divided into three experimental series (S), based on the composition of gases supplied to the operating vertical tube photobioreactor (V-PBR), which provided a source of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. In series 1 (S1), the control, the culture medium was supplied only with atmospheric air. In series 2 (S2), exhaust gases treated using a system operated at MDHC were added to the V-PBR. These gases met the emission standards for SOx, NOx, and dust applicable to this system. In series 3 (S3), the CO2 source for the growing C. vulgaris biomass was exhaust gases completely free of SOx, which were removed using a scrubber with calcium carbonate sorption. The study focused on assessing the efficiency and dynamics of microalgae biomass production and determining the CO2 utilisation efficiency (CO2UE).

2.2. Research Location

Experimental work related to the operation of the tested V-PBRs was conducted at the Municipal District Heating Company (MDHC) LLC (Limited Liability Company) in Olsztyn, Poland (53°74′78.20″ N, 20°44′79.70″ E). MDHC operates six water boilers (WR-25), including three modernised with sheet pile technology, adapted for co-firing coal and biomass. The total nominal capacity of the installation is 174.45 MW. MDHC has a complete exhaust gas treatment installation and a 70 m high emitter. All analytical work was carried out at the Centre of Aquaculture and Ecological Engineering of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland (UWM in Olsztyn) (53°45′14.03″ N, 20°27′43.33″ E).

2.3. Materials

2.3.1. Microalgae Biomass

The C. vulgaris strain BA-166 was acquired from the Collection of Baltic Algae Cultures (CCBA) at the University of Gdańsk. Prior to the experimental runs, the culture was expanded in 1 L flasks containing F/2 medium (8 ppt). The preculture was maintained at 25 °C, under continuous cool-white illumination (~12,000 lx, approximately to 210–300 µmol/m2∙s), with orbital mixing at 100 rpm. Inoculum material was withdrawn once the cells reached the exponential growth phase, ensuring a metabolically active biomass supply. Subsequently, the inoculum was transferred to the V-PBR operated under the defined process conditions. The initial biomass concentration in the reactor was standardised to 50 mg VS/L.

2.3.2. Cultivation Medium

The base medium (BM) was prepared by combining tap water with a nitrogen–phosphorus fertiliser (Azofoska, Grupa INCO SA, Warsaw, Poland) and a microelement mixture (MicroPlus, Intermag, Olkusz, Poland). According to the manufacturer, Azofoska contains 13.3% total nitrogen, distributed as 5.5% nitrate-N and 7.8% ammonium-N, as well as 6.1% P2O5 bound as ammonium citrate, 4.0% water-soluble P2O5, 17.1% K2O, 4.5% MgO, and 21.0% SO3. The MicroPlus supplement provides trace elements in chelated form, including 2.3 g/L boron, 1.2 g/L copper, 22.3 g/L iron, 9.5 g/L manganese, 0.6 g/L molybdenum, and 3.5 g/L zinc. For medium preparation, the fertiliser and the microelement solution were added at 1.35 g/L and 0.1 mL/L, respectively. Tap water used for medium preparation was not sterilised. This approach was intentionally adopted to better reflect real cultivation conditions of microalgae. The absence of sterilisation allowed for the simulation of the natural microbial background and potential interactions typical of semi-open or open systems used in practical CO2 biosequestration and large-scale biomass production.

2.3.3. CO2 Source

In S1 (control series), the CO2 source was atmospheric air. Air was continuously introduced into the V-PBR using an ACO-208 diaphragm pump (Hailea, Chaozhou, China) with a capacity of approximately 5000 ± 50 L/h. This maintained a CO2 concentration in the culture medium of 0.6 ± 0.2 mg/L, corresponding to the maximum equilibrium concentration of CO2 in water. In S2 and S3, the CO2 source was exhaust gases from the MDHC power plant. In S2, the exhaust gases, after pretreatment in the industrial plant, were introduced using an ACO-208 diaphragm pump (Hailea, China) with a capacity of 100 ± 15 L/h. The exhaust gas supply was combined with gas recirculation from the V-PBR gas phase using an ACO-208 diaphragm pump (Hailea, China) with a capacity of approximately 4000 ± 45 L/h. The flow of new exhaust gases into the system was controlled by a pH metre with a voltage controller (1000 L VWR, International, Radnor, PA, USA). The operating pH of the culture medium was 7.0 with a hysteresis of 0.2. When the pH in the culture medium dropped below 6.6, the system shut off the exhaust gas flow. The recirculation pump only drew gas from the gas phase of the V-PBR. If the pH exceeded 7.0, the exhaust gas flow to the recirculation pump intake was activated. Fresh and recirculated exhaust gases were pumped from the bottom of the V-PBR. In S2, the gases came directly from the pipe leading to the emitter. These exhaust gases were reduced in NOx concentration using Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) technology, and the SOx and dust content were reduced using a semi-dry method with Ca(OH)2 lime milk and bag filters.
In S3, exhaust gases from the industrial MDHC pretreatment system were additionally directed to a separate pretreatment system for complete SOx removal. The system used the limestone method for flue gas desulphurisation, which involves absorbing SO2 in a limestone suspension (ground limestone, CaCO3) in water and reacting in the liquid phase:
CaCO3(aq) + H2O → Ca2+ + HCO3−+ OH
SO2(aq) + H2O → HSO3− + H+
HSO3− → H+ + SO23−
HSO3− + ½ O2 → SO24−
and leading to precipitation:
Ca2+ + SO23− + ½ H2O → CaSO3·½ H2O(s)
Ca2+ + SO24− + 2 H2O → CaSO4·2 H2O(s) (gypsum)
After calcium sulphate and sulphite precipitate in water, subsequent portions of calcium carbonate dissolve according to its solubility product, allowing further SO2 absorption. In flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) systems, the absorption process was carried out after dust removal and cooling of the flue gas. The system comprised a 30-litre dust removal tank filled with 1 mm thick glass fibre fabric, with fibre diameters ranging from 0.2 to 2 µm and a porosity of approximately 70 to 90%. The dedusted flue gas then flowed into a 30-litre scrubber filled with calcium carbonate. From the scrubber, the gases passed into a recirculation tank, which served as the intake for the pump supplying the flue gas to the V-PBR feed system. Exhaust gases entered and exited the desulphurisation system at a rate of 100 ± 15 L/h, with recirculation occurring at a rate of 4000 ± 45 L/h. The method of dosing the pretreated exhaust gases to the V-PBR in S3 was analogous to that in S2, using pH measurement (6.6 ± 0.2) to activate the exhaust gas dosing pump. The characteristics of the exhaust gases used in the subsequent test series are presented in Table 1. A diagram of the method for feeding the V-PBR with CO2 in the subsequent test series is shown in Figure 1.

2.4. Experimental Stations and Procedures

C. vulgaris microalgae were cultured in three vertical, cylindrical photobioreactors (V-PBRs) operated on a fractional-technical scale. The total volume of the V-PBRs was 150 L, with a working volume of 120 L filled with culture medium (internal diameter 400 mm, working height 800 mm). The V-PBRs were made of transparent Plexiglas. They were illuminated with fluorescent lamps with a colour temperature of 900 K. The applied luminous flux was 720 lm, measured at photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) of 270–300 μmol/m2·s, at a wavelength of 400–700 nm, using cool white light with a 12:12 light–dark cycle (Osram, Munich, Germany). The culture temperature was maintained at 23.0 ± 2.0 °C using a TERMIO-1 temperature recorder (TER-MOPRODUKT, Bielawa, Poland) with a PT1000 temperature sensor. The adopted environmental conditions reflect the typical operational parameters considered suitable for maintaining stable growth, photosynthetic activity, and cellular integrity of C. vulgaris in controlled photobioreactor systems, ensuring reproducible biomass production throughout the cultivation period.

2.5. Analytical, Computational and Statistical Methods

Samples for volatile solids (VS) and chlorophyll a were collected every 24 h. Volatile solids were determined gravimetrically by combusting the biomass at 550 °C (LAC L muffle furnace, Dąbrowica, Poland) and subsequently weighing the ash (DanLab AX423, Białystok, Poland). The results were expressed as mgVS/L. The concentration of chlorophyll a was determined using a fluorescence method with an Algae Online Analyzer (bbe Moldaenke, Schwentinental, Germany). This device allows continuous and non-invasive measurement of chlorophyll a concentration directly in microalgal suspensions. The analysis is based on the excitation of chlorophyll molecules with modulated blue and red light, followed by detection of emitted fluorescence signals. The intensity of fluorescence is automatically converted to chlorophyll a concentration according to pre-established calibration curves obtained using standard chlorophyll a solutions (Sigma-Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA, analytical grade). The results were expressed as mg/L. Taxonomic analysis of C. vulgaris biomass was performed using an MF 346 biological microscope with an Optech 3MP camera (Eduko, Warsaw, Poland). Microscopic observations were conducted under bright-field illumination at magnifications of 400× and 1000×. Morphological features of the cells, including shape, size, and colony organisation, were evaluated and subsequently compared with descriptions provided in classical taxonomic keys and relevant databases [25,26]. pH measurements were taken with a 1000 L pH metre (VWR International, Radnor, PA, USA). The pH solenoid valves were controlled using an Aqua Medic computerised pH controller (Aqua Medic, Janikowo, Poland). Illuminance was measured with a HI 97500 luxmeter (Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA). PAR measurements were performed using an HD 2102.2 device with an LP471PAR 400 nm–700 nm probe (Senseca, Remscheid, Germany) with a measurement range of 0.1–10,103 μmol/m2·s. The exhaust and effluent gases from the V-PBR were analysed using a Handheld Multigas Analyzer Optima MRU (MRU, GmbH, Neckarsulm, Germany). The analyser measured the gas content of SO2, CO2, CO, and NOx using photoelectric measuring cells. Carbon Dioxide Utilisation Efficiency (CO2UE) was calculated according to Equation (1):
C O 2 U E = 1.88 · ( M P B R M 0 ) M C O 2
where the coefficient 1.88 is derived from the adopted empirical formula for microalgae biomass (CO0.48H1.83N0.11P0.01), where (MPBR − M0) represents the increase in dry biomass mass in the V-PBR, and MCO2 is the mass of supplied CO2. The value of MCO2 was calculated as the total gas volume multiplied by the density ρCO2 = 1.8 g/L (28–30 °C, 105 Pa). The total volume of CO2 (VCO2) was determined based on the efficiency of the pumps supplying gases containing CO2 (flow rate RGAM) and the gas analyser (molar fraction nCO2) as shown in Equation (2):
V C O 2 = n C O 2 ·   R G A M · ( t 2 t 1 )
Experiments were performed in quadruplicate. Statistical analysis was conducted using Statistics 13.3 software (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). The significance level for differences between variables was set at 0.05. Normality of distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, differences between means were determined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and homogeneity of variance within groups was tested using Levene’s test. The significance of differences between analysed variables was assessed using the honest significant difference (HSD) test.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Process and Efficiency of C. vulgaris Cultivation

The biomass production efficiency of C. vulgaris varied significantly between the experimental series. In the control (S1), the microalgae concentration increased steadily from 50 ± 7 mg VS/L on day 0 to a maximum of 1980 ± 101 mg VS/L on day 15 of culture (Figure 2a,b). In S1, the lag phase lasted 3 days, and the exponential phase lasted 9 days (Figure 2c), allowing biomass growth at a rate of 186.6 ± 7.4 mg VS/L·d (Figure 2d, Table 2).
In S2, where the CO2 source was non-desulfurized exhaust gases, the initial growth of the C. vulgaris population was faster than in the control sample. Already on day 2, the biomass reached 144 ± 13 mg VS/L, and on the next day 297 ± 17 mg VS/L (Figure 2a). The obtained values were significantly (p < 0.05) higher than those observed in S1. The lag phase was shorter and amounted to 2 days (Figure 2c), and the exponential growth rate was 147.2 ± 12.1 mg VS/L·d (Figure 2d, Table 2), which is significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those observed in both S1 and S3. The highest C. vulgaris biomass concentration in S2, at 910 ± 71 mg VS/L, was achieved on day 9 (Figure 2b). After 2 days of stable growth, a die-off phase occurred and the biomass density significantly decreased to 470 ± 42 mg VS/L on day 16 (Figure 2a). The observed growth curve indicates that although additional CO2 stimulated C. vulgaris population growth at the beginning of the culture cycle, the presence of contaminants, primarily SO2, caused acidification of the medium, oxidative stress, and toxic sulphate/sulphite accumulation, which led to population destabilisation and decreased productivity later.
The highest technological performance was observed in S3, where the CO2 source consisted of desulfurized flue gases. In this series, the lag phase was short, lasting only 2 days, followed by an exponential growth phase of 6 days, during which C. vulgaris biomass increased at the highest rate of 281.0 ± 16.2 mg VS/L·d (Figure 2c,d). By day 13, the biomass reached 2120 ± 123 mg VS/L, which was approximately 11% higher than in the control S1 (1910 ± 97 mg VS/L) and more than twice that observed in S2 (Figure 2b). These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The stationary phase lasted for 5 days, indicating a stable culture. The slight decrease in biomass to 2020 ± 120 mg VS/L on day 16 (Figure 2a) was minor and within the expected range of natural culture stabilisation at high cell density.
The results obtained confirm literature reports indicating that SO2 is the main barrier to exhaust gas utilisation in microalgae cultivation and that the desulphurisation process is a key step enabling effective CO2 biosequestration [27,28,29,30]. The observed phenomenon can be interpreted in light of several complementary biological and physicochemical mechanisms. SOx present in the aquatic environment dissolves and dissociates, forming sulphuric acid and lowering the pH of the culture medium [12]. The toxic influence of exhaust gas components on C. vulgaris KR-1 was described by Lee et al. [31], who demonstrated that increasing SO2 concentration to 150 ppm (with 15% CO2) rapidly reduced carbon fixation and biomass production within 12 h. Similarly, Fu et al. [15] found that the presence of SO42− ions up to 800 mg/L decreased biomass by 58%, while concentrations above 400 ppm completely inhibited algal growth due to pH decline and chloroplast degradation. Studies using exhaust gases containing SOx confirmed that exposure to 150 ppm H2SO4 reduced algal dry matter from >0.2 g VS/L to approximately 0.05 g VS/L, with the critical threshold at 90 ppm [16]. Literature data consistently indicate that excessive acidification induces physiological stress, inhibits photosynthesis and macromolecule biosynthesis, and reduces the accumulation efficiency of organic substances, directly determining the vs. level [32]. Under low pH conditions, microalgae adjust carbon assimilation mechanisms, switching from active bicarbonate uptake to passive CO2 diffusion [33]. Abinandan et al. [33] also demonstrated metabolic shifts in Desmodesmus sp. MAS1 and Heterochlorella sp. MAS3, with downregulation of carbohydrate pathways and upregulation of protein and lipid pathways [34]. Additionally, the presence of sulphates disrupts ionic balance and nutrient/microelement transport [35], leading to slower growth rates and a lower proportion of organic matter in total cell mass.
Another mechanism described in the literature is the toxic effect of free SO2 forms, which can penetrate the cell membrane and generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals [36,37,38,39]. Oxidative stress causes damage to lipid structures, proteins, and nucleic acids, limiting the ability of cells to divide and effectively biosynthesise organic compounds [38,40,41,42]. Consequently, a decrease in biomass quality is observed, indicated by a lower vs. content
In the control series (S1), the initial concentration of C. vulgaris biomass was 3.10 ± 0.20 mg Chl-a/L and increased systematically to a maximum of 79.20 ± 3.30 mg Chl-a/L on day 15 of culture (Figure 3a,b). The microalgae growth curve was typical, with a 3-day adaptation phase (lag), a dynamic exponential phase lasting 7 days, and a stable stationary phase (6 days), without a distinct death phase (Figure 3c).
In S2, the chlorophyll a concentration reached a maximum of 35.60 ± 2.40 mg Chl-a/L; however, after day 9, growth was inhibited and a decrease in pigment content was observed, reaching 17.41 ± 1.40 mg Chl-a/L on day 16 (Figure 3a). The exponential phase in S2 lasted only 4 days (Figure 3d). The stationary phase lasted 3 days, followed by a distinct death phase lasting 7 days (Figure 3c). The biomass growth rate of 6.37 ± 0.32 mg VS/L·d was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than in both S1 and S3 (Table 2). These results indicate that the presence of not fully desulphurised exhaust gases negatively affected the metabolism and stability of the culture, leading to premature cell senescence. This was most likely a consequence of oxidative stress induced by the presence of SO2 and other gaseous pollutants, which impaired the photosynthetic apparatus [43].
The initial biomass concentration in S3 was 2.95 ± 0.40 mg Chl-a/L, but the increase was significantly (p < 0.05) more dynamic than in the other variants (Figure 3d). By day 6, a level of 54.80 ± 3.10 mg Chl-a/L was reached, and the maximum occurred between days 11 and 13, reaching 93.30 ± 3.70 mg Chl-a/L (Figure 3a). The lag phase was short (2 days), and the exponential phase lasted 5 days, characterised by the highest growth rate among all series, amounting to 12.92 ± 0.41 mg VS/L·d (Figure 3d, Table 2). This value was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than in S1 and S2. The stationary phase lasted 4 days, followed by a gradual die-off phase, during which the biomass decreased slightly to 88.90 ± 4.10 mg Chl-a/L on day 16 (Figure 3c).
It should be noted that only chlorophyll a was determined in this study, as it represents the principal photosynthetic pigment and a direct indicator of photosynthetic efficiency in C. vulgaris. Although chlorophyll b is also involved in light harvesting, its quantitative variations are typically proportional to those of chlorophyll a, and therefore the omission of this parameter does not affect the interpretation of biomass growth dynamics or photosynthetic activity. Chlorophyll a content can be considered a direct indicator of the toxic effects of various factors, including SO2, on C. vulgaris culture [44,45]. Fu et al. [15] observed that as the dissolved SO2 concentration increases, the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in the culture medium rises rapidly, resulting in a rapid drop in pH and thus inhibiting the activity of enzymes and pigments necessary for photosynthesis. The negative mechanism of SO2 involves its dissolution in water and the formation of SO32− and HSO3 ions, which are toxic to microalgae cells [46]. It has been documented that these ions can damage photosynthetic pigments by oxidising the porphyrin ring of chlorophyll a, leading to pigment degradation [47]. Inhibition of chlorophyll biosynthetic enzymes, such as protochlorophyllide reductase, has also been confirmed, as well as disruption of the integrity of thylakoid membranes, where chlorophylls are associated with photosystem protein complexes [48]. Induction of oxidative stress through the generation of ROS is also widely suggested, which enhances pigment degradation [40]. In the presence of SO2, damage to the photosystem II reaction centre, reduced RuBisCO enzyme activity, and decreased electron transport efficiency also occur [49,50]. These disruptions result in limited carbon assimilation and, consequently, lower production of organic compounds in C. vulgaris cells. In practice, this means that the presence of SOx in untreated exhaust gases (S2) not only limits chlorophyll a synthesis but also accelerates its degradation. This explains the shortened exponential phase and the rapid transition of biomass to the die-off phase in this series.

3.2. Characteristics of C. vulgaris Biomass

C. vulgaris cultivation in the presence of SOx in exhaust gases (S2) was characterised by a significantly (p < 0.05) lower vs. content in the biomass. The vs. value in this series was 86.3 ± 1.5% TS, while in S1 and S3 it reached 88.9 ± 1.4% TS and 88.7 ± 1.6% TS, respectively (Table 3). Simultaneously, a decrease in TOC content was observed, from 471 ± 14 mg/g TS (S1) and 477 ± 15 mg/g TS (S3) to 466 ± 13 mg/g TS in S2 (Table 3). A significant reduction in the organic fraction indicates a reduced potential for energy use of the biomass, for example, in biomethane and biohydrogen production processes. The content of bioavailable organic matter determines the technological effects of anaerobic digestion [51,52,53,54].
However, the most pronounced effect of SOx exposure was observed on storage metabolites. In S2, the carbohydrate content was 34.3 ± 1.4% TS, which was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than in S1 and S3, where it was 36.1 ± 1.5% TS and 35.7 ± 1.6% TS, respectively (Table 3). Lower concentrations were also observed for lipids, with the share in S2 not exceeding 5.9 ± 0.8% TS, while in the remaining samples it reached values above 7% TS (Table 3). These differences, confirmed as statistically significant (p < 0.05), clearly indicate that biomass exposure to SOx limited the ability of cells to accumulate energy compounds, primarily fats and sugars. Literature data show that changes in the pH of the culture medium lead to significant modifications in metabolic processes in microalgae cells, particularly in the synthesis of key biomolecules such as carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids [55]. Environmental stress induced by low pH disrupts cell homeostasis, leading to an extended lag phase and changes in metabolism [56]. Generally, microalgae respond to environmental stress with increased lipid accumulation [57]. However, under reduced pH conditions, a shift in carbon uptake metabolism occurs in microalgae cells, switching from active bicarbonate transport to passive diffusion, resulting in a significant change in cell metabolic activity, particularly regarding the accumulation of carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids [34]. Buayam et al. [58] observed a significant decrease in carbohydrate and amino acid synthesis in Desmodesmus sp. when the culture medium pH was 4.0. Osundeko et al. [59] reported a significant reduction in carbohydrate content and an increase in lipid concentration in microalgae cells subjected to oxidative stress. According to other studies, the increase in dry weight and carbohydrate content in Chlorella ellipsoidea cells reached their maximum values at alkaline pH, while the protein content was highest at pH 4 [60].
In contrast to the parameters characterising C. vulgaris biomass described above, protein content and total nitrogen and phosphorus levels remained similar regardless of culture conditions (Table 3). No statistically significant differences were found between batches (p < 0.05). TN content ranged from 46.2 ± 1.3 mg/g TS (S2) to 47.4 ± 1.7 mg/g TS (S3), while TP ranged from 8.4 ± 0.8 mg/g TS (S1) to 8.6 ± 1.1 mg/g TS (S2). This indicates that protein metabolism processes were less susceptible to SOx than the biosynthesis of storage metabolites. Protein content ranged from 28.4 ± 1.1% TS (S2) to 29.3 ± 1.4% TS (S3).
This relationship can be attributed to the physiological effects of SOx on microalgae. In aqueous media, SOx hydrolyses to sulphites and sulphates, lowering pH and generating reactive sulphur species that are toxic to photosystem II and inhibit photosynthesis and carbohydrate synthesis [48]. The resulting oxidative stress produces ROS that damage lipids, carbohydrates, DNA, and cell membranes, explaining the reduced lipid and organic carbon fractions [61,62]. In response, cells activate antioxidant defence pathways, shifting metabolism toward amino acid and protective protein synthesis at the expense of fat and sugar accumulation [62]. Increased proline and glutathione production helps maintain the NADP:NADPH redox balance and protects against oxidative damage [63,64,65]. Under stress, H2S further enhances antioxidant enzyme activity through post-translational modifications such as S-nitrosation and S-glutathionylation [48]. Excess SOx may also disrupt sulphur metabolism and alter the synthesis of sulphur-containing amino acids (methionine, cysteine), leading to changes in biomass composition. ROS-induced oxidation of amino acid residues, particularly arginine, proline, and cysteine, promotes proteolysis of sulphur-rich proteins [66,67]. The absence of significant variation in protein content between batches suggests that nitrogen–protein metabolism remained stable, while carbohydrate and lipid fractions were most affected.

3.3. Changes in the pH of the Culture Medium and CO2 Fixation by C. vulgaris

In the S1 series, using air as the CO2 source, the volume of gas introduced during the cultivation cycle was 1920 m3. The typical CO2 concentration in air was 0.042 ± 0.001% by volume. Taking into account the efficiency of the feeding system used, a total of 1586.6 g of CO2 was introduced to the V-PBR over the 16 days of cultivation (Table 4). The amount of C. vulgaris biomass produced was 232 g VS, resulting in a CO2UE value of 53.8%. The pH of the culture medium systematically increased from an initial level of 7.03 ± 0.03 to 8.14 ± 0.08 on the 16th day of V-PBR operation. This is a typical effect of photosynthesis by microalgae, which decreases the concentration of H+ ions in the culture medium and promotes optimal photosynthetic activity. A stable increase in pH in S1 correlates with steady growth of C. vulgaris biomass and high CO2UE efficiency. A similar increase in pH, from an initial value of 8.55 to 9.55, was observed by Eloka-Eboka and Inambao [4] during studies of CO2 sequestration using microalgal biomass. The pH of the culture medium is crucial for regulating the efficiency of carbon sequestration, photosynthetic activity of microalgae, and nutrient uptake [68,69,70,71,72]. An increase in pH can lead to an imbalance of carbon species in the culture medium due to decreased CO2 solubility and accumulation of bicarbonate and carbonate ions, thus limiting carbon availability to microalgae and hindering the photosynthetic fixation process [73]. Among all forms of inorganic carbon, only dissolved CO2 and the bicarbonate ion HCO3 can be used by microalgae as a carbon source for photosynthesis through passive diffusion and active transport [74]. Hence, CO2 absorption increases at higher pH values due to the reaction between OH and CO2, leading to the formation of bicarbonate [75], while low pH favours CO2 sequestration by microalgae by increasing the concentration of free CO2 [76]. Due to the low atmospheric CO2 concentration, in air-fed algae cultures, CO2 assimilation by microalgae cells can cause an increase in pH even to values above 9.5–10 [77]. However, the recent literature shows that in the pH range from 7.0 to 10.6, the reaction has no significant effect on carbon absorption [72].
In the S2 series, a total of 19.2 m3 of exhaust gases containing SOx were introduced into the V-PBR during a single cultivation cycle. The initial CO2 concentration in the gases in this experimental variant was 5.92 ± 0.31% by volume, resulting in a total of 2231.8 g of CO2 being introduced into the culture medium. Taking into account the composition of the gases leaving the V-PBR, the total CO2 fixation efficiency was 486.3 g CO2, and the total amount of C. vulgaris biomass was 67.4 g. The obtained CO2UE value was the lowest of all analysed series at 24.1% (Table 4). The pH in this series decreased from the initial value of 7.01 ± 0.07 to a minimum of 5.86 ± 0.06 on day 15, indicating clear acidification of the medium after day 8 of cultivation. The pH drop was associated with the accumulation of excess CO2 and the presence of SOx, which limited microalgae metabolism and photosynthesis, contributing to the early termination of the growth phase and the transition to the death phase. Such rapid acidification of the medium is a typical factor limiting CO2UE efficiency, as excess CO2 was not incorporated into the biomass and some of it was chemically converted to bicarbonates or lost in the exhaust gases.
When analysing the cause of the low CO2UE value in the S2 series in detail, several physicochemical and biological mechanisms should be considered. The introduction of exhaust gases containing SOx led to significant acidification of the culture medium after day 8, which correlated with the death of microalgae (Figure 2 and Figure 4). Excess CO2 that was not incorporated into the biomass could undergo partial chemical conversion in the medium as bicarbonate ions (HCO3) or carbonate ions (CO32−), depending on the current pH of the medium [75]. In the S2 series, as the pH dropped below 6, most of the CO2 remained in the dissolved form of carbonic acid (H2CO3), which limited its availability for photosynthesis [73]. Literature data indicate that microalgae prefer HCO3 ions as a carbon source [68,78]. Additionally, the presence of SOx in the culture medium could react with water to form sulphuric acids (H2SO4 and HSO4) [77]. These reactions have been shown to further lower pH and cause osmotic stress for microalgae cells, inhibiting the activity of photosynthetic enzymes and consequently reducing effective CO2 capture [11].
As previously reported [79,80], excess CO2 in the presence of SOx can be partially released from the medium back into the gas phase, particularly with dynamic mixing and gas flow in the V-PBR. This process may also have contributed to the reduction in total CO2UE. In the S2 series, the observed decrease in pH from 7.01 to 5.86 indicates intensive H+ accumulation in the medium, resulting in a significant reduction in the rate of photosynthesis and carbon incorporation into biomass. This phenomenon further demonstrates that CO2UE efficiency depends not only on the amount of CO2 introduced but also on the chemical form of carbon available to microorganisms. Acidification of the growth medium occurs when CO2 is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3) and bicarbonate (HCO3) [81]. Additionally, the SOx content in the exhaust gases fed to the reactor significantly increases substrate acidification [15]. A literature review shows that increasing CO2 concentration in the microalgae cultivation system to approximately 15% can stimulate growth, while exceeding this value leads to inhibition [82,83]. According to other data, microalgae effectively capture carbon from the cultivation medium fed with exhaust gases at a CO2 concentration of 10–20%, but SO2 present in the exhaust gases is toxic to algal cells and hinders carbon fixation [84].
In the S3 series, the volume of fully desulphurised exhaust gases introduced into the V-PBR was 38.4 m3. The exhaust gases contained 5.61 ± 0.22% by volume of CO2, corresponding to 4229.9 g of CO2 supplied to the culture medium during the full culture cycle. The technological conditions used enabled the production of 294 g of C. vulgaris biomass and a CO2UE value of 41.4% (Table 4). The pH of the culture medium gradually increased from 7.12 ± 0.08 to 8.27 ± 0.06 by day 16, promoting stable photosynthetic activity and CO2 incorporation into the biomass. The higher CO2UE efficiency compared to S2 resulted from both the absence of SOx in the exhaust gases and more favourable pH dynamics, which did not inhibit microalgae metabolism. The absence of SOx eliminated an additional acidifying factor, allowing most of the CO2 could be converted into HCO3 and effectively used in photosynthesis, which directly resulted in a higher CO2UE value compared to S2.
The nature of the V-PBR feed gas significantly altered the relationship between pH and CO2 concentration in the exhaust gases, with this dynamic also determined by the physiological state of the biomass. In the case of S1 (air), a very weak positive correlation was observed (R2 = 0.2097), indicating that changes in pH did not significantly affect CO2 content in the exhaust gases. This is due to limited substrate availability—the low CO2 concentration in atmospheric air (~0.04%) restricts the intensity of photosynthetic assimilation, making the pH effect secondary to substrate limitation. In the S3 series (desulphurised exhaust gases), a strong negative correlation was observed (R2 = 0.8773), indicating that increasing pH systematically decreased CO2 concentration in the exhaust gases. The absence of acidic sulphur impurities meant that the observed relationship directly reflected carbonate equilibrium. At higher pH, HCO3 ions predominate, which are readily absorbed by microalgae, leading to intensified photosynthetic processes and a reduction in CO2 content.
The most complex situation was observed in S2 (exhaust gases containing SOx, ~800 mg/m3), where the negative correlation was moderate (R2 = 0.6231). In the initial phase of cultivation (days 0–7), the pH–CO2 relationship partially reflected the mechanism observed in S3; however, from day 8, the biomass death phase began, accompanied by a rapid drop in pH to 5.92 ± 0.06. Previous research has demonstrated that the presence of SO2 may further intensify the acidification of the culture medium through the formation of sulphuric acid and sulphites. A literature review shows that immediately after sulphur dioxide (SO2) present in exhaust gases dissolves in water, hydration reactions produce sulphurous acid (H2SO3), and subsequent dissociation and oxidation reactions lead to the accumulation of hydrogen ions (H+), bisulphite (HSO3), sulphite (SO32−), and sulphate (SO42−) [85]. Sulphate ions can be assimilated by algal cells as a source of sulphur for the synthesis of amino acids and sulphur-containing thylakoid lipids, while bisulphite and hydrogen ions are responsible for inhibiting cell growth [86]. After the collapse of microalgal population growth, photosynthetic activity is often replaced by degradative processes that lead to the release of CO2 and organic acids [87]. As a consequence, pH values drop even further and changes in CO2 concentration become less predictable, which lowers the coefficient of determination.

4. Conclusions

Experimental studies have demonstrated that the presence of SOx in exhaust gases significantly negatively affects the production efficiency, growth rate, and stability of C. vulgaris cultures. Supplying the culture medium with sulphur-laden exhaust gases resulted in inhibited growth after only eight days of the production cycle, with the microalgae culture entering a dying phase. In this case, the lowest CO2 utilisation rate was also observed, at 24.1%.
It was found that exposure of C. vulgaris to SOx in exhaust gases significantly reduced the energy content of microalgae biomass, specifically lipids and carbohydrates. Protein, nitrogen, and total phosphorus content remained stable regardless of the gaseous CO2 source tested.
The highest C. vulgaris biomass production efficiency, 2120 ± 123 mg VS/L, was achieved in the series where the exhaust gases were completely desulphurised. The exponential phase was the shortest, and the biomass growth rate was the highest, reaching 281 ± 16.2 mg VS/L·d, indicating the crucial importance of flue gas desulphurisation for effective microalgae cultivation. CO2 utilisation efficiency in this technological variant averaged 41.4%.
Based on these results, the optimal cultivation period for C. vulgaris under the tested conditions is 12–14 days when using fully desulfurized flue gases. This period encompasses the exponential growth phase and allows the culture to reach maximum biomass before the onset of natural stabilisation or stress-related decline, highlighting the importance of flue gas desulfurization and controlled dosing for maintaining culture stability and maximising CO2 utilisation.
The results confirm that C. vulgaris microalgae can effectively capture CO2 from real industrial exhaust gases, provided that pre-desulphurisation is implemented. Integrating microalgae cultivation with flue gas desulphurisation installations can be an effective CO2 biosequestration strategy, simultaneously generating valuable biomass for further use in the production of biofuels, biogas, or high-value-added materials. The results indicate the need to optimise the desulphurisation processes and controlled flue gas dosing to increase the stability of the cultivation and the efficiency of CO2 utilisation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Z. and M.D.; methodology, M.Z. and M.D.; software, M.D.; validation, M.K. and M.D.; formal analysis, M.Z.; investigation, M.Z., Ł.B., M.K., A.V., J.K. and M.D.; resources, M.Z., Ł.B., M.K., A.V., J.K. and M.D.; data curation, M.Z., Ł.B., M.K., A.V., J.K. and M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K. and M.D.; writing—review and editing, M.Z., Ł.B., M.K., A.V., J.K. and M.D.; visualisation, M.K. and M.D.; supervision, M.Z.; project administration, M.D.; funding acquisition, M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by works No. 29.610.023-110 of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn and WZ/WB-IIŚ/3/2025 of the Bialystok University of Technology, and funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Municipal District Heating Company LCC (Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej Sp. z o.o.) in Olsztyn for providing access to its facilities and for the comprehensive technical support that made this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Almeida, D.V.; Kolinjivadi, V.; Ferrando, T.; Roy, B.; Herrera, H.; Gonçalves, M.V.; Van Hecken, G. The “Greening” of Empire: The European Green Deal as the EU first agenda. Polit. Geogr. 2023, 105, 102925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hanson, E.; Nwakile, C.; Hammed, V.O. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies: Evaluating the effectiveness of advanced CCUS solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Results Surf. Interfaces 2025, 18, 100381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Devi, K.U.; Swapna, G.; Suman, K. Bio-sequestration of CO2–Potential and Challenges. In Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization; Goel, M., Sudhakar, M., Shahi, R.V., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2019; pp. 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Eloka-Eboka, A.C.; Inambao, F.L. Effects of CO2 sequestration on lipid and biomass productivity in microalgal biomass production. Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 1100–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rupesh, K.J.; Prahaaladhan, V.; Matheshwaran, S.; Rahul, S.; Sudalai, S.; Arumugam, A. Carbon dioxide capture using algae. In Advances and Technology Development in Greenhouse Gases: Emission, Capture and Conversion; Rahimpour, M.R., Makarem, M.A., Meshksar, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 331–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dudek, M.; Dębowski, M.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Zieliński, M.; Quattrocelli, P.; Nowicka, A. The Cultivation of Biohydrogen-Producing Tetraselmis subcordiformis Microalgae as the Third Stage of Dairy Wastewater Aerobic Treatment System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pulz, O.; Gross, W. Valuable products from biotechnology of microalgae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2004, 65, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Banerjee, I.; Dutta, S.; Pohrmen, C.B.; Verma, R.; Singh, D. Microalgae-based carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and application of nanomaterials in algal biorefinery. Octa J. Biosci. 2020, 8, 129–136. [Google Scholar]
  9. Roudbari, M.S. Algae-Based Building Materials: Applications, Challenges, and Prospects. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Engineering, Innovation & Technology, Brussel, Belgium, 10 March 2025; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389761372_Algae-Based_Building_Materials_Applications_Challenges_and_Prospects (accessed on 10 October 2025).
  10. Zhang, S.; Liu, Z. Advances in the biological fixation of carbon dioxide by microalgae. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2021, 96, 1475–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yadav, G.; Sen, R. Microalgal green refinery concept for biosequestration of carbon-dioxide vis-à-vis wastewater remediation and bioenergy production: Recent technological advances in climate research. J. CO2 Util. 2017, 17, 188–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Matsumoto, H.; Hamasaki, A.; Sioji, N.; Ikuta, Y. Influence of CO2, SO2 and NO in flue gas on microalgae productivity. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 1997, 30, 620–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pires, J.C.M.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Martins, F.G.; Simões, M. Carbon dioxide capture from flue gases using microalgae: Engineering aspects and biorefinery concept. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3043–3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, J.S.; Kim, D.K.; Lee, J.P.; Park, S.C.; Koh, J.H.; Cho, H.S.; Kim, S.W. Effects of SO2 and NO on growth of Chlorella sp. KR-1. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 82, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Fu, J.; Huang, Y.; Xia, X.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, X.; Chang, J.-S.; Liao, Q. How the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas influence microalgal carbon dioxide fixation: From gas dissolution to cells growth. Renew. Energy 2022, 198, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Crofcheck, C.; Shea, A.; Montross, M.; Crocker, M.; Andrews, R. Influence of flue gas components on the growth rate of Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus acutus. Trans. ASABE 2013, 56, 1421–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Comley, J.G.; Scott, J.A.; Laamanen, C.A. Utilizing CO2 in industrial off-gas for microalgae cultivation: Considerations and solutions. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2024, 44, 910–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alvarez, A.L.; Weyers, S.L.; Goemann, H.M.; Peyton, B.M.; Gardner, R.D. Microalgae, soil and plants: A critical review of microalgae as renewable resources for agriculture. Algal Res. 2021, 54, 102200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kisielewska, M.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Romanowska-Duda, Z.; Dudek, M. Effectiveness of Scenedesmus sp. Biomass Grow and Nutrients Removal from Liquid Phase of Digestates. Energies 2020, 13, 1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, R.; Wang, X.; Zhu, T. Research progress and application of carbon sequestration in industrial flue gas by microalgae: A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 152, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Al-Hammadi, M.; Güngörmüşler, M. New insights into Chlorella vulgaris applications. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2024, 121, 1486–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kiseleva, S.V.; Chernova, N.I.; Vlaskin, M.S.; Grigorenko, A.V.; Chunzhuk, E.A.; Malaniy, S.Y.; Bakumenko, E.A.; Rositskaya, T.V. Carbon Dioxide Absorption by Microalgae: Analysis of Technologies and Energy Costs. Therm. Eng. 2024, 71, 1038–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dębowski, M.; Michalski, R.; Zieliński, M.; Kazimierowicz, J. A Comparative Analysis of Emissions from a Compression–Ignition Engine Powered by Diesel, Rapeseed Biodiesel, and Biodiesel from Chlorella protothecoides Biomass Cultured under Different Conditions. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lananan, F.; Jusoh, A.; Ali, N.; Lam, S.S.; Endut, A. Effect of Conway Medium and f/2 Medium on the growth of six genera of South China Sea marine microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 141, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. John, D.M.; Whitton, B.A.; Brook, A.J. The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles: An Identification Guide to Freshwater and Terrestrial Algae, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Listing the World’s Algae. Available online: https://www.algaebase.org/ (accessed on 10 October 2025).
  27. Ma, M.; Yuan, D.; He, Y.; Park, M.; Gong, Y.; Hu, Q. Effective control of Poterioochromonas malhamensis in pilot-scale culture of Chlorella sorokiniana GT-1 by maintaining CO2-mediated low culture pH. Algal Res. 2017, 26, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Scapini, T.; Woiciechowski, A.L.; Manzoki, M.C.; Molina-Aulestia, D.T.; Martinez-Burgos, W.J.; Fanka, L.S.; Duda, L.J.; Vale, A.S.; de Carvalho, J.C.; Soccol, C.R. Microalgae-mediated biofixation as an innovative technology for flue gases towards carbon neutrality: A comprehensive review. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 363, 121329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, K.-Y.; Zhou, J.-L.; Guo, S.-Y.; Dou, X.-X.; Gu, J.-J.; Gao, F. Advances of microalgae-based enhancement strategies in industrial flue gas treatment: From carbon sequestration to lipid production. Bioresour. Technol. 2025, 423, 132250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheah, W.Y.; Show, P.L.; Chang, J.-S.; Ling, T.C.; Juan, J.C. Biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 and flue gas-containing CO2 by microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 184, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lee, J.N.; Lee, J.S.; Shin, C.S.; Park, S.C.; Kim, S.W. Methods to enhance tolerances of Chlorella KR-1 to toxic compounds in flue gas. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2000, 84–86, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Abinandan, S.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Phenotypic changes in microalgae at acidic pH mediate their tolerance to higher concentrations of transition metals. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2021, 2, 100081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Abinandan, S.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Cole, N.; Dharmarajan, R.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Sustainable production of biomass and biodiesel by acclimation of non-acidophilic microalgae to acidic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 271, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abinandan, S.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Pannerselvan, L.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Potential of acid-tolerant microalgae, Desmodesmus sp. MAS1 and Heterochlorella sp. MAS3, in heavy metal removal and biodiesel production at acidic pH. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 278, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Narayan, O.P.; Kumar, P.; Yadav, B.; Dua, M.; Johri, A.K. Sulfur nutrition and its role in plant growth and development. Plant Signal. Behav. 2023, 18, 2030082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kong, F.X.; Hu, W.; Chao, S.Y.; Sang, W.L.; Wang, L.S. Physiological responses of the lichen Xanthoparmelia mexicana to oxidative stress of SO2. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1999, 42, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, J.; Tang, X.; Pan, K.; Zhu, B.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y. Application study for the high CO2 tolerant Chlorella strain by flue gas culture: Evaluation of growth performance and adaptive mechanisms. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 479, 147700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, Z.-G.; Li, X.-E.; Chen, H.-Y. Sulfur Dioxide: An Emerging Signaling Molecule in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 891626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ishibashi, Y.; Kasa, S.; Sakamoto, M.; Aoki, N.; Kai, K.; Yuasa, T.; Hanada, A.; Yamaguchi, S.; Iwaya-Inoue, M. A role for reactive oxygen species produced by NADPH oxidases in the embryo and aleurone cells in barley seed germination. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, L.; Yi, H. Effect of sulfur dioxide on ROS production, gene expression, and antioxidant enzyme activity in Arabidopsis plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 58, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guo, Z.; Zhao, J.; Wang, M.; Song, S.; Xia, Z. Sulfur dioxide promotes seed germination by modulating reactive oxygen species production in maize. Plant Sci. 2021, 312, 111027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mittler, R.; Vanderauwera, S.; Gollery, M.; Van Breusegem, F. Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Muneer, S.; Kim, T.H.; Choi, B.C.; Lee, B.S.; Lee, J.H. Effect of CO, NOx and SO2 on ROS production, photosynthesis and ascorbate-glutathione pathway to induce Fragaria × annasa as a hyperaccumulator. Redox Biol. 2014, 2, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Vdovychenko, A.; Golub, N.; Zieliński, M.; Levtun, I. Effect of acids on biomass growth and development of Chlorella vulgaris culture. Innov. Biosyst. Bioeng. 2024, 8, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dyachok, V.; Mandryk, S.; Huhlych, S.; Slyvka, M. Study of the impact of activators in the presence of an inhibitor on the dynamics of carbon dioxide absorption by chlorophyll-synthesizing microalgae. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pfanz, H.; Würth, G.; Oppmann, B.; Schultz, G. Sulfite oxidation in, and sulfate uptake from the cell wall of leaves. In muro studies. Phyton Ann. Rei Bot. Horn 1992, 32, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  47. Peiser, G.D.; Yang, S.F. Chlorophyll destruction by the bisulfite-oxygen system. Plant Physiol. 1977, 60, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Singh, G.; Patel, A.; Tiwari, S.; Gupta, D.; Prasad, S.M. Signaling molecules hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and nitric oxide (NO): Role in microalgae under adverse environmental conditions. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2022, 44, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schmidt, W.; Neubauer, C.; Kolbowski, J.; Schreiber, U.; Urbach, W. Comparison of effects of air pollutants (SO2, O3, NO2) on intact leaves by measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence and P700 absorbance changes. Photosynth. Res. 1990, 25, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Covello, P.S.; Chang, A.; Dumbroff, E.B.; Thompson, J.E. Inhibition of Photosystem II precedes thylakoid membrane lipid peroxidation in bisulfite-treated leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 1989, 90, 1492–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zaidi, A.A.; Khan, S.Z.; Almohamadi, H.; Filho, E.P.B.; Akber, N.S.; Khan, M.I.; Riaz, F.; Farooq, M. Enhancing bio-hydrogen and biogas yields through optimized ultrasonic pretreatment of algal biomass for sustainable energy production. Energy Nexus 2025, 18, 100430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zabed, H.M.; Qi, X.; Yun, J.; Zhang, H. Anaerobic Digestion of Microalgae Biomass for Methane Production. In Microalgae Biotechnology for Development of Biofuel and Wastewater Treatment; Alam, M., Wang, Z., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Walter, J.M.; Greses, S.; Hagen, L.H.; Schiml, V.C.; Pope, P.B.; González-Fernández, C.; Arntzen, M.Ø. Anaerobic digestion of microalgae: Microbial response and recovery after organic loading disturbances. mSystems 2025, 10, e01674-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Silveira, E.O.; Felizzola, N.M.; Hickmann, E.V.; Konrad, O.; Lutterbeck, C.A.; Machado, E.L.; Rodrigues, L.R. Energy recovery by anaerobic digestion of algal biomass from integrated microalgae/constructed wetland wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 13317–13326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Perera, I.A.; Abinandan, S.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Naidu, R.; Megharaj, M. Microalgal-bacterial consortia unveil distinct physiological changes to facilitate growth of microalgae. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2021, 97, fiab012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Borowitzka, M.A. Chapter 3—Biology of Microalgae. In Microalgae in Health and Disease Prevention; Levine, I.A., Fleurence, J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 23–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kwak, H.S.; Kim, J.Y.H.; Woo, H.M.; Jin, E.; Min, B.K.; Sim, S.J. Synergistic effect of multiple stress conditions for improving microalgal lipid production. Algal Res. 2016, 19, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Buayam, N.; Davey, M.P.; Smith, A.G.; Pumas, C. Effects of copper and pH on the growth and physiology of Desmodesmus sp. AARLG074. Metabolites 2019, 9, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Osundeko, O.; Dean, A.P.; Davies, H.; Pittman, J.K. Acclimation of microalgae to wastewater environments involves increased oxidative stress tolerance activity. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 55, 1848–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Khalil, Z.I.; Asker, M.M.S.; El-Sayed, S.; Kobbia, I.A. Effect of pH on growth and biochemical responses of Dunaliella bardawil and Chlorella ellipsoidea. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 26, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Singh, V.P.; Srivastava, P.K.; Prasad, S.M. UV-B induced differential effect on growth and nitrogen metabolism in two cyanobacteria under copper toxicity. Cell Mol. Biol. 2012, 58, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Hare, P.D.; Cress, W.A. Metabolic implications of stress-induced proline accumulation in plants. Plant Growth Regul. 1997, 21, 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Trovato, M.; Forlani, G.; Signorelli, S.; Funck, D. Proline metabolism and its functions in development and stress tolerance. In Osmoprotectant-Mediated Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants; Hossain, M.A., Kumar, V., Burritt, D., Fujita, M., Mäkelä, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 41–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dorion, S.; Ouellet, J.C.; Rivoal, J. Glutathione metabolism in plants under stress: Beyond reactive oxygen species detoxification. Metabolites 2021, 11, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Moller, I.M.; Jensen, P.E.; Hansson, A. Oxidative modifications to cellular components in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2007, 58, 459–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hancock, J.; Desikan, R.; Harrison, J.; Bright, J.; Hooley, R.; Neill, S. Doing the unexpected: Proteins involved in hydrogen peroxide perception. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 1711–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prasad, R.; Gupta, S.K.; Shabnam, N.; Oliveira, C.Y.B.; Nema, A.K.; Ansari, F.A.; Bux, F. Role of microalgae in global CO2 sequestration: Physiological mechanism, recent development, challenges, and future prospective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gao, K. Approaches and involved principles to control pH/pCO2 stability in algal cultures. J. Appl. Phycol. 2021, 33, 3497–3505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Aditya, L.; Vu, H.P.; Johir, M.A.H.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Silitonga, A.S.; Zhang, X.; Nghiem, L.D. Role of culture solution pH in balancing CO2 input and light intensity for maximising microalgae growth rate. Chemosphere 2023, 343, 140255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Yadav, G.; Mathimani, T.; Sekar, M.; Sindhu, R.; Pugazhendhi, A. Strategic evaluation of limiting factors affecting algal growth—An approach to waste mitigation and carbon dioxide sequestration. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 796, 149049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yin, D.; Wang, Z.; Wen, X.; Ding, Y.; Hou, X.; Geng, Y.; Li, Y. Effects of carbon concentration, pH, and bubbling depth on carbon dioxide absorption ratio in microalgae medium. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 32902–32910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yahaya, E.; Yeo, W.S.; Nandong, J. Optimization of microalgae cultivation and CO2 capture in a three-stage bubble column photobioreactor: Evaluation of control strategies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2025, 196, 106906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Singh, S.P.; Singh, P. Effect of CO2 concentration on algal growth: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. González-López, C.V.; Acién Fernández, F.G.; Fernández-Sevilla, J.M.; Sánchez Fernández, J.F.; Molina Grima, E. Development of a process for efficient use of CO2 from flue gases in the production of photosynthetic microorganisms. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012, 109, 1637–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Wang, Z.; Wen, X.; Xu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Geng, Y.; Li, Y. Maximizing CO2 biofixation and lipid productivity of oleaginous microalga Graesiella sp. WBG1 via CO2-regulated pH in indoor and outdoor open reactors. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhao, B.; Su, Y. Process effect of microalgal-carbon dioxide fixation and biomass production: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yamano, T.; Fukuzawa, H. Carbon-concentrating mechanism in a green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, revealed by transcriptome analyses. J. Basic Microbiol. 2009, 49, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Miri, R.; Aagaard, P.; Hellevang, H. Examination of CO2–SO2 solubility in water by SAFT. Implications for CO2 transport and storage. J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 10214–10223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Wappel, D.; Joswig, S.; Khan, A.A.; Smith, K.H.; Kentish, S.E.; Shallcross, D.C.; Stevens, G.W. The solubility of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in an aqueous solution of potassium carbonate. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2011, 5, 1454–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chen, Y.; Xu, C.; Vaidyanathan, S. Microalgae: A robust “green bio-bridge” between energy and environment. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2018, 38, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wijayasekera, S.C.N.; Cooray, B.Y.; Premaratne, M.; Ariyadasa, T.U. Assessment of the potential of CO2 sequestration from cement flue gas using locally isolated microalgae. In Proceedings of the Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 28–30 July 2020; pp. 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yen, H.-W.; Ho, S.-H.; Chen, C.-Y.; Chang, J.S. CO2, NOx and SOx removal from flue gas via microalgae cultivation: A critical review. Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huang, Y.; Fu, J.; Xia, A.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, X.; Liao, Q. Step-wise SO2-feeding strategies for microalgae-based CO2 fixation from flue gas and bioenergy production. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 468, 143646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yang, S.; Wang, J.; Cong, W.; Cai, Z.; Ouyang, F. Effects of bisulfite and sulfite on the microalga Botryococcus braunii. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2004, 35, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chiu, S.-Y.; Kao, C.-Y.; Huang, T.-T.; Lin, C.-J.; Ong, S.-C.; Chen, C.-D.; Chang, J.-S.; Lin, C.-S. Microalgal biomass production and on-site bioremediation of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide from flue gas using Chlorella sp. cultures. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 9135–9142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Gorelova, O.; Baulina, O.; Ismagulova, T.; Kokabi, K.; Lobakova, E.; Selyakh, I.; Semenova, L.; Chivkunova, O.; Karpova, O.; Scherbakov, P.; et al. Stress-induced changes in the ultrastructure of the photosynthetic apparatus of green microalgae. Protoplasma 2019, 256, 261–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the method of supplying V-PBR with CO2 depending on the experimental series.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the method of supplying V-PBR with CO2 depending on the experimental series.
Energies 18 06086 g001
Figure 2. Dynamics of vs. concentration in the C. vulgaris culture under different CO2 sources: temporal changes in biomass concentration (a), maximum biomass levels achieved (b), duration of individual growth phases (c), and progression of the linear growth phase (d).
Figure 2. Dynamics of vs. concentration in the C. vulgaris culture under different CO2 sources: temporal changes in biomass concentration (a), maximum biomass levels achieved (b), duration of individual growth phases (c), and progression of the linear growth phase (d).
Energies 18 06086 g002
Figure 3. Dynamics of Chl-a concentration in the C. vulgaris culture under different CO2 sources: temporal changes in Chl-a concentration (a), maximum Chl-a levels achieved (b), duration of individual growth phases (c), and progression of the linear growth phase (d).
Figure 3. Dynamics of Chl-a concentration in the C. vulgaris culture under different CO2 sources: temporal changes in Chl-a concentration (a), maximum Chl-a levels achieved (b), duration of individual growth phases (c), and progression of the linear growth phase (d).
Energies 18 06086 g003
Figure 4. Changes in CO2 concentration in the V-PBR effluent during the culture cycle (a); relationship between the pH of the culture medium and CO2 concentration in the V-PBR effluent in S1 (b), S2 (c), and S3 (d).
Figure 4. Changes in CO2 concentration in the V-PBR effluent during the culture cycle (a); relationship between the pH of the culture medium and CO2 concentration in the V-PBR effluent in S1 (b), S2 (c), and S3 (d).
Energies 18 06086 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of gases constituting the source of CO2 in successive experimental series.
Table 1. Characteristics of gases constituting the source of CO2 in successive experimental series.
IndicatorUnitSeries
S1S2S3
CO2% obj.0.042 ± 0.0015.92 ± 0.315.61 ± 0.22
O2% obj.21.0 ± 0.210.2 ± 2.19.8 ± 1.6
COmg/m30.0 ± 0.0241 ± 92233 ± 74
NOxmg/m38.2 ± 0.9284 ± 21277 ± 33
SOxmg/m311 ± 1.1801 ± 910.0 ± 0.0
dustmg/m3not marked4.3 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.0
Table 2. C. vulgaris biomass growth rate, characterised by vs. and Chl-a concentration during the linear growth phase, according to the experimental series.
Table 2. C. vulgaris biomass growth rate, characterised by vs. and Chl-a concentration during the linear growth phase, according to the experimental series.
SeriesUnitValue
S1mg VS/L·d186.6 ± 7.4
S2147.2 ± 12.1
S3281 ± 16.2
S1mg Chl-a/L·d7.72 ± 0.34
S26.37 ± 0.32
S312.92 ± 0.41
Table 3. Characteristics of C. vulgaris biomass depending on the test series.
Table 3. Characteristics of C. vulgaris biomass depending on the test series.
ParameterUnitS1S2S3
Volatile solids (VS)[%TS]88.9 ± 1.4 a86.3 ± 1.5 b88.7 ± 1.6 a
Total nitrogen (TN)[mg/gTS]47.1 ± 1.5 a46.2 ± 1.3 a47.4 ± 1.7 a
Total phosphorus (TP)[mg/gTS]8.4 ± 0.8 a8.6 ± 1.1 a8.5 ± 0.9 a
Total carbon (TC)[mg/gTS]540 ± 18 a573 ± 22 b549 ± 20 ab
Total organic carbon (TOC)[mg/gTS]471 ± 14 a466 ± 13 b477 ± 15 a
Proteins[%TS]29.2 ± 1.2 a28.4 ± 1.1 a29.3 ± 1.4 a
Lipids[%TS]7.0 ± 0.7 a5.9 ± 0.8 b7.3 ± 0.9 a
Saccharides[%TS]36.1 ± 1.5 a34.3 ± 1.4 b35.7 ± 1.6 a
Description: Different superscript letters (a, b, ab) within the same row indicate statistically significant differences between the analysed variables. The same letters indicate no significant difference.
Table 4. Output data and achieved CO2 utilisation efficiency during the full cultivation cycle by experimental series.
Table 4. Output data and achieved CO2 utilisation efficiency during the full cultivation cycle by experimental series.
SeriesVolume of Air Introduced
Into the V-PBR [m3]
Volume of Exhaust Gases Introduced
Into the V-PBR [m3]
CO2 Content in Gases Introduced Into the
V-PBR [% vol.]
Amount of CO2 Introduced into the
V-PBR During the Cultivation Cycle [gCO2]
CO2 Content in Gases Discharged from the
V-PBR [% vol.]
Amount of CO2 Discharged from the
V-PBR During the Cultivation Cycle [gCO2]
CO2 Bound During the Cultivation Process in the
V-PBR [gCO2]
Total Amount of C. vulgaris Biomass Obtained During the Cultivation Cycle [g]CO2 Utilisation Efficiency [%]
S11920-0.0421586.60.022793.3793.3232.053.8
S2-19.25.922231.84.631745.5486.367.424.1
S3-38.45.614229.93.872917.91311.9294.041.4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zieliński, M.; Barczak, Ł.; Kisielewska, M.; Vdovychenko, A.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Dębowski, M. Carbon Dioxide Bio-Sequestration and Biomass Production for Energy Purposes During C. vulgaris Cultivation Powered by Real Exhaust Gases from a Municipal Thermal Power Plant. Energies 2025, 18, 6086. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236086

AMA Style

Zieliński M, Barczak Ł, Kisielewska M, Vdovychenko A, Kazimierowicz J, Dębowski M. Carbon Dioxide Bio-Sequestration and Biomass Production for Energy Purposes During C. vulgaris Cultivation Powered by Real Exhaust Gases from a Municipal Thermal Power Plant. Energies. 2025; 18(23):6086. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236086

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zieliński, Marcin, Łukasz Barczak, Marta Kisielewska, Alona Vdovychenko, Joanna Kazimierowicz, and Marcin Dębowski. 2025. "Carbon Dioxide Bio-Sequestration and Biomass Production for Energy Purposes During C. vulgaris Cultivation Powered by Real Exhaust Gases from a Municipal Thermal Power Plant" Energies 18, no. 23: 6086. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236086

APA Style

Zieliński, M., Barczak, Ł., Kisielewska, M., Vdovychenko, A., Kazimierowicz, J., & Dębowski, M. (2025). Carbon Dioxide Bio-Sequestration and Biomass Production for Energy Purposes During C. vulgaris Cultivation Powered by Real Exhaust Gases from a Municipal Thermal Power Plant. Energies, 18(23), 6086. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236086

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop