150 Int. J. Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 12, Nos.

2/3/4, 2012

Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in

Malaysia

Rosalam Sarbatly and Emma Suali*

School of Engineering and Information Technology,
Universiti Malaysia Sabah,
Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu Sabah, Malaysia
Fax: +6088-320348
E-mail: rslam@ums.edu.my
E-mail: emma.suali@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Abstract: CO2 emission, which is feared to bring more harm than benefit to
the environment, can be prevented and reduced through the cultivation of
microalgae. Microalga is the fastest growing organism (estimated 40 times
faster than terrestrial grass) and requires a high CO2 concentration to reproduce.
Thus, this work evaluates the potential of microalgae to utilise CO2. The
tolerable concentration of CO2 for high microalgae productivity as a biomass
producer is also explored. High productivity of microalgae is the key to
successful biofuel productions, that is, not only producing green energy
but also preventing the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Because of this
concern, microalgae potential as a double-benefit for green energy production
is analysed and discussed considering a CO2 emissions scenario in Malaysia.

Keywords: carbon dioxide; microalgae; biomass; global warming; biofuel;

green energy; Malaysia.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sarbatly, R. and Suali, E.

(2012) ‘Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia’, Int. J.
Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 12, Nos. 2/3/4, pp.150–160.

Biographical notes: Rosalam Sarbatly is the Dean of the School of

Engineering and IT in the Universiti Malaysia Sabah. His research interests
include green technology, renewable and sustainable energy and membrane
technology. For the past few years, he has been actively involved in research
and has been published hundreds of articles and books in established journals.
Currently, he works in renewable energy research that focuses on microalgae
and membrane applications.

Emma Suali is a PhD student in Chemical Engineering at the Universiti

Malaysia Sabah. Her previous research focused on mass transfer and drag
reduction in pipeline. Her interests extended to renewable and sustainable
energy and microalgae as a biomass producer. Her PhD research focuses on
CO2 utilisation by microalgae using membrane integrated with photobioreactor.
She has published articles in established journals and books as a co-author.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Potential use
of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia’ presented at 2010 International
Conference on Environment, Penang, Malaysia, 13–15 December 2010.

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia 151

1 Introduction

Recently, the issue of global warming as the main cause of climate change has received
notable attention. The major source of global warming is CO2 emissions from the
combustion of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels from vehicles, manufacturing and
petroleum burning (Diakoulaki and Mandaraka, 2007; Mattisson et al., 2009).
The World Meteorology Organization (WMO) reported that 2008 was the warmest
year on record (World Meteorological Organization, 2008). The annual growth rate of
CO2 in the atmosphere was 2.38 ppm/yr or 5,069 million metric tons (MMT) in 2010,
which shows an increase of about 0.73 ppm/yr or 1,554 MMT/yr from 2009. In the first
quarter of 2011, the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 391.92 ppm or
83,478 MMT (Tans, 2011). In Malaysia alone, the total CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion was 164.2 MT in 2009 (International Energy Agency, 2011).
Antarctic and arctic sea ice also show declines caused by increasing global
temperature (Stroeve et al., 2007; Swingedouw et al., 2008). Sea level, on the other hand,
rose about 17 cm over the last century; this forced some communities to relocate,
including Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Panama and Vanuatu (Mattson, 2010). The sea level
in Malaysia is expected to increase about 10 to 13 cm over the next 100 years (The Star
Online, 2010).
Energy is continually used in an inefficient way due to lack in knowledge about
techniques to prevent the release of CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon, capture and storage
(CCS) is the current technique used by some commercial plants. The efficiency of this
technique ranges from 80% to 100% (Hendriks, 2007). It typically involved storage of
CO2 at depths of more than 1 kilometre (Gibbins and Chalmers, 2008). The cost of CCS
is reportedly about 200 to 250 USD for every 1 tonne of captured carbon (Anderson and
Newell, 2004). Safety, capital cost and storage capacity are the major issues. One concern
often raised by environmental activists is leaking of the CO2 reservoir, which can cause
sudden increased acidity in the ocean that can kill marine life. However, the CCS
technique has received considerable attention for its potential to enhance oil recovery
(EOR). The CCS technology has not been applied in Malaysia due to government policy
that requires specific study before approval.
Microalgae cultivation uses CO2 as an essential feed for photosynthesis. A microalga
is about 10 µm in size and only can be seen under microscope and is capable to amass
lipid as high as 80% on a dry weight basis. Microalgae biomass can be converted into
biodiesel through transesterification and into biofuel products such as methanol and
gasoline through thermochemical conversion. Microalga is also rich in biochemical
compounds which can be added to infant formulas and nutritional supplements (Spolaore
et al., 2006). In the energy balance of biofuel production from microalgae, cultivation is
the most crucial part. More than 25% of recoverable energy depends on the cultivation
parameters; CO2 supplied is essential for photosynthesis. In light of this concern, this
work reviews microalga as a carbon sequestration converting carbon into biomass
for biofuel productions. Microalgae commercialisation in Malaysia is still under
development. There are a few established companies, such as UTAR Microalgae Sdn.
Bhd, cultivating microalgae in open ponds and photobioreactor for food supplement
(UTAR, 2011). Other established companies such as Algatech Sdn. Bhd cultivate
microalgae as a source of renewable energy and for food supplement (Algatech, 2011).
152 R. Sarbatly and E. Suali

2 Issues with CO2 emissions

2.1 Major CO2 sources

The CO2 excess in the atmosphere results from natural sources and human activities.
Natural sources of CO2 include volcanic outgassing, respiration of living organisms,
combustion of organisms and ocean-atmosphere exchange. Usually, these natural sources
were small enough to cause global warming and loss in carbon cycle during the physical
and biological process of living organisms such as photosynthesis and respiration
process.
Human activities including the burning of fossil fuel to generate energy contribute
more than 80% of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The deforestation without
systematic technique also reduces the potential sink of CO2 and contributes to CO2
concentration in the atmosphere.
As of 2009, the total CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels were
estimated to be approximately 29,000 MT. The transportation industry contributed more
CO2 emission than any other sector, accounting for more than 37%. Other sector as
indicated in Table 1 includes industrial wastes and non-renewable municipal waste which
contributes only 0.39% of the total CO2 emissions. As shown in Table 1, coal and peat
sector has contributed the highest amount of CO2 emissions in 2009.
Table 1 Comparison of global CO2 emission and energy consumptions by sector

CO2 emissions in millions ton

Industries Total (%)
Coal and peat Oil Natural gas Othersc
1 8,091.3 695.1 1,972.2 37.6 37.23
2 453.5 150.4 386.8 40.3 03.56
3 13 6,366.7 164.1 0 22.57
4 3,093.1 1,500.2 1,247.3 30.3 20.24
5 273.5 641.8 548 0.8 05.05
6 568.7 1,276.6 1,443.9 4.2 11.36
Total (%) 43.08 36.66 19.87 0.39
Total (MT) 12,536.61 10,667.82 5,782.37 113.2
Energy consumptionsa 3,305.6 3,908.7 2,661.4 N/A
Ratio (C:E)b 1:3.8 1:2.7 1:2.1 N/A
a
Notes: Energy consumptions in millions ton oil equivalent
b
Ratio of consumptions and emissions
c
Other sectors
N/A – data not available
1: Electricity and heat generation
2: Unallocated autoproducer
3: Transportation
4: Manufacturing industries
5: Other energy industries
6: Others
 Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia 153

The CO2 emissions of the coal and peat sector is accounted for more than 43% and
represents almost half of the overall CO2 emissions in 2009, followed by the oil sector
which accounted for more than 36% (International Energy Agency, 2011). The CO2
emissions of the coal sector grew by 7.6% in 2010, the fastest growth among energy
source since 2003 (BP, 2010). The main reason for high emissions of CO2 from the coal
sector is the high consumption of coal in developing countries especially China. This
resulted in total coal consumptions of 29.6% compared to global energy consumptions in
2010. This shows that coal and peat in the future have potential to become the highest
contributor of CO2 emissions. The ratio of energy consumptions and CO2 emissions, also
shown in Table 1, indicates that the coal sector has a highly significant impact on CO2
emissions. The total CO2 emission in Malaysia was 164.2 millions ton in 2009. The
overall energy consumptions and CO2 emissions are shown in Figure 1. The oil sector
contributed the highest CO2 emissions, while the coal and peat sector contributed the
lowest. However, the ratio of emissions and consumptions of coal sector was the highest
among the energy source as indicated in Table 1.

Figure 1 Comparison of energy consumptions and CO2 emissions in Malaysia

2.2 Management of CO2 emissions

The prevention of CO2 emissions associated with energy demands makes it difficult
to control. One frequently used technique is CCS, a filtration process and absorption
method. Microalgae culture has become an interesting approach to the bio-mitigation of
CO2. The microalgae biomass can be harvested and processed to produce green energy.
This approach is low risk compared to CCS.
The CCS technique is a process in which CO2 is captured and transported to the
storage using pipelines that withstand 79 times atmosphere pressure, about 80 bar
(Hendriks, 2007). The captured CO2 is stored in an area formerly used for oil and gas
reserves or exhausted saline formation. The injected CO2 enhances oil recovery by
pushing up the oil and gas to the reachable surface. This technique seems to be the most
effective for CO2 management compared with ocean storage, which damages the
ecosystem. However, the CCS technique requires high-level knowledge, especially in
risk assessment, to make it safe.
 154

Issue Microalgae CCS Conventional methods Table 2

Approach Utilises and transforms CO2 into biomass
Design requirement No specific design for open pond
cultivation. However, closed system
cultivation (photobioreactor) requires
specific design for light exposure and
mixing transfer.
CO2 management cost No or low cost
Captures, stores and enhances oil recovery
Pipeline for CO2 transportation to the
underground requires specific design that
withstand pressure more than 80 bar and the
pipeline distance is in the range of 0.8 and
1 km.
30 to 160 (US$/tonne CO2 captured)
Prevents the release of emitted CO2 into
the atmosphere by filtration process in the
manufacturing system, whereas the filtered
gasses is recycled to the system or sent to
other means of storage.
Based on absorption and adsorption
techniques with the aid of membrane
technology, which can be done chemically
or physically. Usually was attached to the
manufacturing system.
Lower than the CCS. The cost depends on
R. Sarbatly and E. Suali

chemical or solvent type that uses to separate

the CO2 from other gases.
Efficiency Up to 30% In the range of 80% and 99%* Up to 95% based on absorbent type such as
ammonia
EOR efficiency Not involved Up to 60% Not involved
Risk Low or no risk High-risk on safety and effect to the Low risk
underground ecosystem is not well known.
Land requirement **Flexible land requirement, 1 ha requires Injected underground, not using usable land, Attached to industrial or manufacturing
to produce 58,000 to 136,000 l biomass oil taking advantage on emptied gas and oil system, thus, does not requires additional
depends on microalgae. reserves underground land.
Final product Biofuel Enhanced oil (fossil fuel) production Biofuel or fossil fuel
CO2 emission of final Low (final product is biofuel) High (enhanced oil is fossil fuel) This technique does not produce additional
product final products.
Biofuel or fuel production 1 kg of CO2 requires to produce crude 1 kg of CO2 will result in production of extra N/A
Comparison of microalgae, CCS and conventional approaches

based on 1 kg of CO2 biofuel equivalent to 0.57 kga. crude oil recovery equivalent to 0.98 kgb.
Remarks This approach prevents the CO2 emission. This approach prevents only the CO2 This approach prevents the release of CO2
emission produces from its own plants. from the system.
Notes: aThe estimated value was based on 1 kg of CO2 required to produce about 0.25 kg of microalgae biomass with lipid content estimated about 70% of dry
biomass and both extraction and conversion efficiency is 90%.
b
Based on estimation that 18 millions ton of CO2 will recover extra 130 million barrels of crude oil
*EOR efficiency
**Based on microalgae that accumulate 50% to 70% lipid contents
N/A – not applicable
 Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia 155

Table 2 shows a comparison of CCS, microalgae and conventional approaches to prevent

the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. These approaches have their own advantages
and limits but can be applied as alternatives for CO2 management. The recovered oil
of CCS still contributes to CO2 emissions through the combustion process for daily use.
The microalgae approach, on the other hand, utilises CO2 emission up to 30%, and the
microalgae biomass can be used to produce secondary energy which releases less CO2
into the atmosphere compared to CCS. However, the energy produced is probably less
than that of CCS. Because of this, the microalgae approach should be applied along with
CCS technology or other techniques to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.
Malaysia has not carried out any critical technique to tackle CO2 emissions in the
atmosphere. This is because the Malaysian statistic for CO2 emissions is much lower than
the average limit for tolerable CO2 concentration. However, if Malaysia needs to set up
another coal power plant, the microalgae approach is the most feasible way to reduce the
release of CO2 from this plant, which can be built beside the coal plant. In addition, the
Malaysian policy to reduce about 40% of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as
announced by the Malaysian Prime Minister during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate
Conference, will not be achieved if coal plants or any other plant that releases large
quantity of CO2 the atmosphere does not come up with a feasible approach for CO2
emissions management.

3 Photosynthetic of microalgae

Microalgae can be classified as heterotrophic or phototrophic. Heterotrophic microalgae

do not use CO2, because they cannot make their own food. Heterotrophic microalgae
require sugar as a carbon source and reproduce in the dark. They obtain organic carbon
from an external environment through either the uptake of dissolved organic compounds,
called osmotrophy, or by ingesting particles through a process known as phagotrophy
(Graham and Wilcox, 2000). Phototrophic microalgae, on the other hand, use CO2 as a
carbon source during the photosynthesis process. The photosynthetic pigments of
microalgae are mainly composed of chlorophylls, carotenoids and phycobilins (Singh and
Srivastava, 2008).
The microalgae growth rate is as much as 40 times that of terrestrial. Microalgae
commonly multiple their biomass within 24 hours, and the biomass doubling time is
generally as short as 3.5 hours (Hu et al., 2006). The growth rate of microalgae can be
analysed through cell quantification. The organisation and composition of the
chlorophyte cell wall has a notable similarity with the higher plant where starch is
produced within chlorophyte plastids (Hick et al., 2001). Because of this similarity,
chlorophyte or green algae are considered to have the same photosynthetic pigments as
terrestrial plants. However, the photosynthesis metabolism of these algae varies, resulting
in different growth rates and biochemical contents. During the photosynthesis process,
the molecule pigment chlorophyll absorbs a photon and loses an electron. This electron is
passed to pheophytin, a chlorophyll molecule that lacks Mg2+, to become the first electron
carrier intermediate in the electron transfer pathway of photosystemII. Pheophytin then
passes the electron to a quinone molecule, allowing the start of a flow of electrons down
an electron transport chain that leads to the eventual discount of nicotinamide adenine
dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) to NADPH. This process creates a proton gradient across
the chloroplast membrane; its dissipation is used for adenosine triphosphate synthesis for
156 R. Sarbatly and E. Suali

the ATP concomitant synthesis. The chlorophyll molecule regains the lost electron from
H2O molecule through a process called photolysis and releases an oxygen (O2) molecule.
The energy absorbed from light is stored in ATP and NADPH, which are used in the
Calvin cycle to produce glucose. Individual pigments selectively absorb certain
wavelengths of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). This PAR characteristic affects
the biomass production of microalgae strains. Those high-energy chemical molecules
are used to convert atmospheric CO2 into carbohydrate and other energy containing
compounds.
The conversion of CO2 into carbohydrate takes place in the chloroplast stroma and
follows a complex metabolic pathway called the Calvin cycle or dark phase (Raines,
2003). During the Calvin cycle, the non-regulated enzymes catalyse reversible reactions;
aldolase and transketolase exert significant control over carbon flux. As recommended by
Raines (2003), increasing the amounts of these enzymes may lead to an increase in
photosynthetic carbon assimilation. This finding could be manipulated to use CO2 for
maximum biomass production. Also, microalgae have higher photosynthetic efficiencies
than terrestrial plants and are more efficient in capturing carbon (Packer, 2009).
Table 3 Tolerable concentration of CO2 and biomass yield by culture of microalgae

Biomass yield
Microalgae species CO2 concentration (%) Referenceb
(g/l/d)a
Botryococcus braunii 5 (air enriched with CO2) 4.96 Sydney et al. (2001)
5.5 (fraction in flue gas) 0.077 Yoo et al. (2010)
10 (pure CO2) 0.026 Yoo et al. (2010)
Chlorella sp. 5 (air enriched with CO2) 2.51 Sydney et al. (2001)
6–8 (fraction in flue gas) 0.323–0.38 Doucha et al. (2005)
6–8 (pure CO2) 0.318–0.376 Doucha et al. (2005)
9–10 (pure CO2) 0.15 Lee et al. (1996)
Chlorococcum litorelle 10–20 (pure CO2) 0.19 Lee et al. (1996)
Dunaliella tertiolecta 5 (air enriched with CO2) 2.72 Sydney et al. (2001)
Scendesmus sp. 5.5 (fraction in flue gas) 0.203 Yoo et al. (2010)
10 (pure CO2) 0.217 Yoo et al. (2010)
Spirulina platensis 5 (air enriched with CO2) 3.18 Sydney et al. (2001)
Synechocystis aquatilis 10 (air enriched with CO2) 0.15 Zhang et al. (2001)
Monoraphidium minutum 2 (pure CO2) 0.480 Chiu et al. (2009)
a
Notes: Based on daily yield in gram per 1 litre of media culture
b
Reference as indicated in reference list

4 Biomass yield and CO2 concentration

To create a double benefit for green energy production, it is important to feed microalgae
within its tolerable amount of CO2. Biomass yield of microalgae depends on its essential
feed. When cultivated in sufficient amounts of CO2, nutrients and light, biomass in
maximum production can be achieved. The commonly cultivated microalgae species to
achieve this purpose are listed in Table 3. As shown, the tolerable CO2 concentration for
 Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia 157

cultivation ranges from 5% and 20% of air enriched with either pure or flue gases, which
consist of slight NOx and SOx. Microalgae species tested suitable for CO2 fixation
include Chlorella sp. H84, Chlorella sp. A2, Chlorella sorokiniana, Chlorella vulgaris,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa, Chlorella vulgaris, Spirulina platensis, Emiliania Huxley,
Nannochloropsis sp. and Phaeodactylum sp. (Shelp and Canvin, 1980; Negoro et al.,
1993; Sekino and Shiraiwa, 1994; Hirata and Hayashitani, 1998; Jeong et al., 2003).
Table 3 also shows that some species react positively with flue gases compared to pure
gas. In addition, the use of flue gas or pure CO2 directly to the cultivation system does
not adversely affect algal growth (Negoro et al., 1993). This shows that microalgae are
capable to utilise CO2 emission from power plants.

5 Current development of CO2 utilisation by microalgae

So far, there is no established company in Malaysia that is working to reduce CO2

emissions using microalgae. However, this approach is still under development.
Companies that have begun to develop an algae facility using flue gas as a carbon source
for biofuel production include HR BioPetroleum, Alexander and Baldwin, Hawaiian
Electric and Maui Electric Company (HRBP, 2010). These companies signed a
memorandum in 2008 to build a facility to culture microalgae on a commercial scale
by uptaking the CO2 release from the Maalaea plant. GreenFuel Technology Corporation
and Aurantia Group have also reported working on commercial scale microalgae
cultivation utilising greenhouse gas emission for foods and fuels production. The second
phase of the project began in 2008 and is estimated to produce 25,000 tonnes of algae
biomass annually (Pollution Online, 2008).
Since 2005, more microalgae-based plants have been built but not officially reported.
Besides plants, more companies also claim successful production systems or technology
for biofuel production where CO2 utilisation is the primary concern. Companies that have
developed open or closed systems for microalgae cultivation include A2BE Carbon
Capture, AlgaeLink, Dynamic Biogenics, GreenShift, Green Star Products and Kai
BioEnergy (A2BE, 2010; AlgaeLink, 2010; PESWiki, 2010).
Microalgae as a carbon sequestration only seems feasible if used as biofuel feedstock.
There are specific issues that need to be explored before making microalgae as a CO2
sequester. These parameters include the analysis of certain system on how efficient the
microalgae could utilise CO2 to avoid unutilised CO2 releases into the atmosphere. This
issue is critical when cultivating microalgae in an open pond which might contain a
variety of microalgae species that have different abilities to utilise CO2. Open system
cultivation would directly release the unutilised CO2 into the atmosphere compared to the
photobioreactor system.

6 Conclusions

Among green approaches for CO2 management, the microalgae approach is the best way
to reduce CO2 emissions. In addition, microalgae’s ability to produce high lipid content
makes it suitable as green energy feedstock for biofuel productions. While CCS
technology can be applied as an alternative to prevent the release of high CO2 emitted
158 R. Sarbatly and E. Suali

from large-scale power plant, microalgae as biofuel feedstock must be applied along with
the CCS approach for better energy balance production.

Acknowledgements

The work was financially supported by the Research Grant LRGS/TD/2011/UMP/PG/04

from Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia. This work was also supported by the
Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia.

References
A2BE (2010) ‘A2BE presents new scale-up insights on securing a sustainable algae-based
feedstock supply chain’, News, 23 June, available at http://www.A2BE.com (accessed on
14 July 2010).
AlgaeLink (2010) Home, available at http://www.algalink.com (accessed on 14 July 2010).
Algatech (2011) ‘Algatech Sdn. Bhd’, available at http://www.algaetech.com.my/indexA.html
(accessed on 5 June 2011).
Anderson, S. and Newell, R. (2004) ‘Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies’,
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, November, Vol. 29, pp.109–142.
BP (2010) ‘BP statistical review of world energy’, June, 45 pp., Report, London.
Chiu, S.Y., Kao, C.Y., Tsai, M.T., Ong, S.C., Chen, C.H. and Lin, C.S. (2009) ‘Lipid accumulation
and CO2 utilisation of Nannochloropsis oculata in response to CO2 aeration’, Bioresource
Technology, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp.833–838.
Diakoulaki, D. and Mandaraka, M. (2007) ‘Decomposition analysis for assessing the progress in
decoupling industrial growth from CO2 emissions in the EU manufacturing sector’, Energy
Economic, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.636–664.
Doucha, J., Straka, F. and Livansky, K. (2005) ‘Utilisation of flue gas for cultivation of microalgae
(Chlorella sp.) in an outdoor open thin-layer photobioreactor’, Journal of Applied Phycology,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.403–412.
Gibbins, J. and Chalmers, H. (2008) ‘Carbon capture and storage’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, No. 12,
pp.4317–4322.
Graham, L.E. and Wilcox, L.W. (2000) Algae, p.11, Prentice Hall, USA.
Hendriks, C. (2007) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Secretariat-Financial and Technical Support Programme, August, 18 pp., Carbon Capture and
Storage, Draft Report.
Hick, G.R., Hionaka, C.M., Dauvillee, D., Funke, R.P., D’Hulst, C., Waffenschmidt, S. and
Ball, S.G. (2001) ‘‘When simpler is better’, Unicellular green algae for discovering new genes
and functions in carbohydrate metabolism’, Plant Physiology, Vol. 127, No. 4, pp.1334–1338.
Hirata, S. and Hayashitani, M. (1998) ‘Carbon dioxide fixation and biomass production with
blue-green algae Spirulina platensis’, Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Vol. 114,
pp.617–620.
HRBP (2010) HR BioPetroleum, Alexander & Baldwin, Hawaiian Electric and Maui Electric to
Develop Algae Facility for Biodiesel on Maui, 15 July, available on HR BioPetroleum website
(accessed on 14 July 2010).
Hu, Q., Zhang, C.W. and Sommerfeld, M. (2006) ‘Biodiesel from algae: lessons learned over the
past 60 years and future perspectives’, Annual Meeting of the Phycological Society of
America, 7–12 July, pp.40–41, Juneau, Alaska.
International Energy Agency (2011) CO2 emission from Fuel Combustion-Highlight 2011 Edition,
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, November, 123pp., Report.
 Potential use of carbon dioxide by microalgae in Malaysia 159

Jeong, M.L., Gillis J.M. and Hwang, J.Y. (2003) ‘Carbon dioxide mitigation by microalgal
photosynthesis’, Bulletin Korean Chemical Society, Vol. 24, No. 12, pp.1763–1766.
Lee, J.S., Sung, K.D., Kim, M.S., Park, S.C. and Lee, K.W. (1996) ‘current aspects of carbon
dioxide fixation by microalgae in Korea’, Symposium on the Capture, Utilisation and Disposal
of CO2, Fall, Vol. 41, No. 4, Orlando.
Mattisson, T., Lyngfelt, A. and Henrik, L. (2009) ‘Chemical-looping with oxygen uncoupling for
combustion of solid fuels’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 3,
pp.11–19.
Mattson, S. (2010) ‘Rising sea drives Panama islanders to mainland’, Reuters News, 12 July,
available at http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE66B0PL20100712 (accessed on
16 July 2010).
Negoro, M., Hamasaki, A., Ikuta, Y., Makita, T., Hirayama, K. and Suzuki, S. (1993) ‘Carbon
dioxide fixation by microalgae photosynthesis using actual flue gas discharged from a boiler’,
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Vols. 39–40, No. 1, pp.643–653.
Packer, M. (2009) ‘Algal capture of carbon dioxide; biomass generation as a tool for greenhouse
gas mitigation with reference to New Zealand energy strategy and policy’, Energy Policy,
Vol. 37, No. 9, pp.3428–3437.
PESWiki (2010) ‘Directory: biodiesel from algae oil’, available at http://peswiki.com/
index.php/Directory:Biodiesel_from_Algae_Oil (accessed on 14 July 2010).
Pollution Online (2008) ‘GreenFuel algae CO2 recycling project with Aurantia enters second phase
at Spanish cement plant’, 21 October, Article, available at http://www.pollutiononline.com/
doc.mvc/GreenFuel-Algae-CO2-Recycling-Project-With-0001 (accessed on 14 July 2010).
Raines, C.A. (2003) ‘Minireview: the Calvin cycle revisited’, Photosynthesis Research, Vol. 75,
No. 1, pp.1–10.
Sekino, K. and Shiraiwa, Y. (1994) ‘Accumulation and utilisation of dissolved inorganic carbon by
a marine unicellular coccolithophorid, Emiliania huxleyi’, Plant and Cell Physiology, Vol. 35,
No. 3, pp.353–361.
Shelp, B.J. and Canvin, D.T. (1980) ‘Utilisation of exogenous inorganic carbon species in
photosynthesis by Chlorella pyrenoidosa’, Plant Physiology, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp.774–779.
Singh, S.K. and Srivastava, S. (2008) A Textbook of Algae, 12th ed., p.6, Campus Books
International, New Delhi.
Spolaore, P., Joannes-Cassan, C., Duran, E. and Isambert, A. (2006) ‘Commercial application of
microalgae: review’, Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp.87–96.
Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. and Serreze, M. (2007) ‘Article sea ice decline:
faster than forecast’, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L09501, Doi:10.1029/
2007/GLo29703.
Swingedouw, D., Fichefet, T., Huybrechts, P., Goosse, H., Driesschaert, E. and Loutre, M.F. (2008)
‘Antarctic ice sheet melting provides negative feedbacks on future climate warming’,
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L17705, Doi: 10.1029/2008GL034410.
Sydney, E.B., Sturm, W., Carvalho, J.C., Thomaz-Soccol, V., Larroche, C., Pandey, A. and Soccol,
C.R. (2001) ‘Potential carbon dioxide fixation by industrially important microalgae’,
Bioresource Technology, Vol.101, pp.5892–5896.
Tans, P. (2011) Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, available at
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends// (accessed on 10 June 2011).
The Star Online (2010) ‘Sea levels rising in the peninsula, says Kurup’, News, available at
http://www.thestar.com.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/2010/7/23/nation/6722124.asp&
sec=nation (accessed on 20 July 2010).
UTAR (2011) UTAR Microalgae Sdn. Bhd, available at
http://www.utarmicroalgae.com/main/home.php (accessed on 4 June 2011).
World Meteorological Organization (2008) WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in
2008, December, 16 pp., Report No.:1039, Geneva 2, Switzerland.
160 R. Sarbatly and E. Suali

Yoo, C., Jun, S., Lee, J., Ahn, C. and Oh. (2010) ‘Selection of microalgae for lipid production
under high levels carbon dioxide’, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 101, pp.S71–S74.
Zhang, K., Miyachi, S. and Kurano, N. (2001) ‘Evaluation of a vertical flat-plate photobioreactor
for outdoor biomass production and carbon dioxide biofixation: effects of reactor dimensions,
irradiation and cell concentration on the biomass productivity and irradiation utilisation
efficiency’, Applied Microbiology Biotechnology, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp.428–433.