A life cycle assessment of energy recovery using briquette from wastewater grown microalgae biomass

Microalgae biomass (MB) is a promising source of renewable energy, especially when the cultivation is associated with wastewater treatment. However, microalgae wastewater technologies still have much to improve. Additionally, microalgae biomass valorization routes need to be optimized to be a sustainable and feasible source of green bioenergy. Thus, this paper aimed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the production of briquettes from MB, cultivated during domestic wastewater treatment. Also, it was evaluated how much the drying of the MB affected the life cycle and the environment. Improvements in the life cycle to mitigate the environmental impacts of this energy route were proposed. Cradle-to-gate modeling was applied to obtain a life cycle assessment (LCA) from cultivation to the valorization of MB, through its transformation into a solid biofuel. With LCA, it was possible to identify which technical aspect of the process needs to be optimized so that environmental sustainability can be achieved. Two scenarios were compared, one with the microalgae growth in a high-rate algal pond (HRAP) (scenario 1) and the other in a hybrid reactor, formed by a HRAP and a biofilm reactor (BR) (scenario 2). LCA highlighted the electric power mix, representing, on average, 60% of the total environmental impacts in both scenarios. The valorization of MB in briquettes needs to consume less energy to offset its yield. The environment suffered pressure in freshwater eutrophication, due to the release of 3.1E-05 and 3.9E-05 kg of phosphorus equivalent; in fossil resources scarcity, with the extraction of 1.4E-02 and 4.5E-02 kg of oil equivalent; and in climate change, by the emission of 1.0E-01 and 1.9E-01 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, in scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Scenario 1 was highly damaging to terrestrial ecotoxicity, with the release of 3.5E-01 kg of 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, coming from the CO2 used in MB growth. This category was the one that most negatively pressured the environment, differing from scenario 2, in which this input was not required. This was the only impact category in which scenario 2 had a better environmental performance when compared to scenario 1. Cotton, required in scenario 2, represented up to 87% of emissions in some of the evaluated categories. Despite the impacts that occurred in the two modeled scenarios, the environmental gains due to the use of wastewater for microalgae growth, replacing the synthetic cultivation medium,