CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 52, 2016 A publication of The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.aidic.it/cet Guest Editors: Petar Sabev Varbanov, Peng-Yen Liew, Jun-Yow Yong, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Hon Loong Lam Copyright © 2016, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l., ISBN 978-88-95608-42-6; ISSN 2283-9216 Evaluation of Different Solvent Types on the Extraction of Proteins from Microalgae Win Nee Phonga, Cheng Foh Leb, Pau Loke Show*c, Hon Loong Lamc, Tau Chuan Linga aInstitute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia bSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. cDepartment of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. PauLoke.Show@nottingham.edu.my The commercial production of microalgal proteins at low cost remains challenging. The release of proteins from microalgae is restricted by the presence of rigid thick cell wall that could hinder the extraction process and affect the proteins recovery yield. In view of this, this study aimed to provide some guidance on the selection of the efficient solvent in facilitating the proteins release during the cell disruption process. The effects of different solvent types such as methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol and water in facilitating the process of proteins release from microalgal cell wall were studied in the present study. Based on the results, it was found that water able to release the highest concentration of proteins from microalgae compared to the other solvents. 1. Introduction Microalgae are a group of structurally simple microorganisms, with sizes ranging from 1μm to 1mm, except when they form natural proliferations which is known as algal blooms (Blackburn and Volkman, 2012). Microalgae do not possess structures that characterize land plants such as rhizoids, leaves, roots and stems (Cheah et al., 2014). Despite of lacking the complex tissues and organs, microalgae represent the largest and most robust microorganisms on earth (Chisti, 2007). They are ubiquitously distributed in a broad range of environmental conditions (Duong et al., 2015). These tiny microorganisms can even survive in harsh environments (Mata et al., 2010) such as saturated saline (Kumar et al., 2011), coastal seawater, brackish water, seawater as well as wastewater (Dragone et al., 2010) and in (Kumar et al., 2015). Previous literature reported that the mass production of proteins source from microalgae has led to the increase of commercial interest due to several advantages possessed by microalgae over conventional crops (Solana et al., 2014) and other discussion in (Safi et al., 2014). In the recent decades, it was found that microalgal proteins emerge as the most promising and sustainable alternative to conventional protein sources (Safi et al., 2015) such as fishmeal and soybean in aquaculture industry (Roy and Pal, 2014). This is mainly owing to the high protein content (Blackburn and Volkman, 2012) and other discussion in (López Barreiro et al., 2013) and nutritional quality of microalgae (Norambuena et al., 2015). These extensively diverse and abundant group of microorganisms (Singh and Sharma, 2012) have the ability to synthesise all types of essential amino acids which are mostly equivalent or even better with that of other higher plant (Spolaore et al., 2006). It was found that their amino acid composition does not significantly affected by changes in environmental conditions (Blackburn and Volkman, 2012). Apart from that, the farming of microalgae is cost-effective than conventional crops due to numerous attractive characteristics (Phong et al., 2016). It has been reported that although these photosynthetic microorganisms are tiny in size in comparison to the land-based crops, they have high photosynthetic efficiency (López DOI: 10.3303/CET1652178 Please cite this article as: Phong W. N., Le C. F., Show P. L., Lam H. L., Ling T. C., 2016, Evaluation of different solvent types on the extraction of proteins from microalgae, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 52, 1063-1068 DOI:10.3303/CET1652178 1063 Barreiro et al., 2013), high growth rate, short harvesting cycle which is generally less than ten days (Cheah et al., 2014) and in (Chen et al., 2013) and further in (Taher et al., 2014), possess high disease resistance ability, high metabolites content and high biomass density (Roy and Pal, 2014). Compared to conventional farming, microalgal farming are characterized by a high productivity per unit area and therefore microalgal farming is amenable to mass culture (Chisti, 2007). Furthermore, microalgae can be cultured on non-arable land (Ferreira et al., 2013) with minimum land space requirement (Sambusiti et al., 2015). Microalgal cultivation are less seasonal and weather restrictions (Duong et al., 2015). Researchers also observed that microalgal farming does not compete with conventional agriculture for resources (Dragone et al., 2010). For example, the cultivation of microalgae require lesser fertilizer, simple nutrient input (Verma et al., 2010) and generally consumes less freshwater compared to the conventional agriculture. On top of that, microalgal farming able to consume nutrients contained in wastewater for growth (Tan et al., 2015). It has been proven experimentally that inorganic waste such as phosphates and nitrates can be effectively eliminated from wastewater (Solana et al., 2014). In addition, microalgae could also aid in combating the greenhouse effect and global warming attributed by their high rate of sequestration ability in fixing carbon dioxide (Li et al., 2008) and other discussion in (Yang et al., 2015). Due to this unique characteristic, the emissions of industrial exhaust gases such as carbon dioxide can be mitigated efficiently by these diverse and robust group of microorganisms (Ferreira et al., 2016) and other discussion in (Cheah et al., 2014). However, one of the main difficulties faced in the mass production of proteins commercially is the low recovery of proteins due to the presence of multiple layers of rigid thick cell wall (González-Fernández et al., 2012) and also in (Günerken et al., 2015). Furthermore, the proteins are mostly trapped in globules or bound to complex membranes, making the extraction of proteins from microalgae a great challenge (Wang et al., 2014) and in (Günerken et al., 2015). The development of a simple, rapid and cost-effective cell disruption method is important to facilitate the release of proteins from microalgae (Safi et al., 2015) with minimum processing cost in microalgal industry especially at large scale application. This is because this process would have a significant impact on the efficiency of the subsequent steps in downstream processing (Phong et al., 2016). Therefore, it is imperative to choose a suitable and cost-effective solvent for use in the cell disruption and extraction process. In view of this, this study could provide some guidance on the selection of the efficient solvent to facilitate the proteins release during the downstream processing of microalgae. 2. Objectives This research aimed to study the efficiency of different types of solvent on the proteins release from microalgae as well as to select the most suitable solvent for use in microalgal industry to facilitate the disruption and extraction process. 3. Methodology Chlamydomonas sp. Tai-03 was chosen for evaluation in the present study. This microalgal strain belongs to the division of Chlorophyta and class of Chlorophyceae. Chlamydomonas sp. Tai-03 was cultivated in a laboratory-scale photobioreactor to obtain the maximum biomass production. After harvesting, the frozen paste of crude microalgal biomass was freeze dried using freeze dryer. Subsequently, the dried biomass was manually ground into fine powder using a mortar. Four different types of solvents that were used for comparison and evaluation in this experiment were methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol and water. Microalgal biomass weighed 0.1g was dispersed in 10 mL of each solvent. After centrifugation, the pellet was discarded while the supernatant was collected for proteins analysis. The amount of proteins released from the microalgal cells was estimated by BCA protein assay. The absorbance was measured at 562 nm using microplate absorbance reader. The overall flow of the experimental process was summarized in Figure 1. 1064 Figure 1: Flow diagram of experimental process. 4. Results and Discussions A protein standard curve was constructed to estimate the concentration of proteins in a sample. In this experiment, bovine serum albumin (BSA) was used as a standard for the construction of a standard curve. BSA is the most common used protein standard owing to its high purity and low cost (Sattayasai, 2012). The protein concentration of the microalgae can be measured using the equation generated from the standard curve, namely y = 0.0014x as shown in Figure 2. In order to obtain the maximum recovery of cell contents from microalgae, selecting a suitable solvent to facilitate the release of the cell contents during the cell disruption and extraction process is undoubtedly one of the most crucial initial steps in downstream processing. It is important to enhance the assimilation and bioavailability of the intracellular compounds in the extraction solvent (Safi et al., 2015) so as to ensure the liberation of the internal components into the liquid medium, making them readily available for the subsequent extraction and separation process. Based on the results of the present study, it was found that among all the solvents tested, water was found to be able to extract the highest proteins concentration from C. Tai-03 with about 3% of protein concentration per dry weight, followed by 1-propanol, ethanol and methanol (Figure 3). As illustrated in Figure 3, the percentage of proteins release in water as the solvent was approximately four-fold higher than that of using methanol as the solvent. Microalgae cultivation Harvesting Biomass preparation Solvent extraction (treated with four different solvents) CentrifugationBCA protein assay Data analysis 1065 Figure 2: Standard curve for BCA protein assay using BSA as the standard. Figure 3: Total proteins content of Chlamydomonas Tai-03 subjected to different types of solvent. Each bar is an average of three replicates. y = 0.0014x R² = 0.9987 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Absorbance (562 nm) BSA concentration (ug/mL) Standard curve for BCA protein assay 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Methanol Ethanol 1-propanol Water protein concentration (%) per dry weight types of solvent Chlamydomonas Tai-03 1066 This study provided a preliminary investigation into the effect of solvent types on the proteins liberation from microalgae. Apart from evaluating the effectiveness of a solvent, other factors such as cost, safety and the ease of scalability should also be considered when determining the suitability of a solvent for use at large scale. This is important to ensure the long-term environmental and economical sustainability in the aquaculture industry. Besides from being the most effective extraction solvent, water has several advantages over the other solvents such as low-cost, ubiquitous availability, safety and ease of production scaling. As such, it can be suggested that water is an excellent choice of solvent in aiding the proteins release from microalgae at large scale downstream processing. As the process of releasing protein from microalgae using water as the solvent is cost-effective, the mechanism behind the chemical interaction between the water and microalgal proteins could be an exciting subject for further investigation. 5. Conclusion Overall, it was found from the study that water could be an excellent solvent for microalgal downstream processing with the indication of higher proteins yield compared to the other solvents. Further investigation using water as the choice of solvent should be tested on different strains of microalgae so as to evaluate its general effectiveness in facilitating the liberation of proteins from various types of microalgae with varying composition of cell wall. Acknowledgement This work is supported financially by SATU Joint Research Scheme (RU022E-2014) from University of Malaya, Malaysia’s Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FP054-2013B and FRGS/1/2013/SG05/UNIM/02/1), Malaysia’s Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation (SF016-2013 and MOSTI-02-02-12-SF0256), Taiwan's Ministry of Science and Technology (104-3113-E-006 -003 - and 103- 2221-E-006-190-MY3) and Taiwan's Ministry of Education on Top University Grants. References Blackburn S.I., Volkman J.K., 2012. Microalgae : A Renewable Source of Bioproducts 221–241. Cheah W.Y., Show P.L., Chang J.-S., Ling T.C., Juan J.C., 2014. Biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 and flue gas-containing CO2 by microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 184, 190–201. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.026 Chen C.-Y., Zhao X.-Q., Yen H.-W., Ho S.-H., Cheng C.-L., Lee D.-J., Bai F.-W., Chang J.-S., 2013. Microalgae-based carbohydrates for biofuel production. Biochem. Eng. J. 78, 1–10. DOI:10.1016/j.bej.2013.03.006 Chisti Y., 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 25, 294–306. DOI:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.02.001 Dragone G., Fernandes, B., Vicente, A.A., Teixeira, J.A., 2010. Third generation biofuels from microalgae, in: Méndez-Vilas, A. (Ed.), Current Research, Technology and Education Topics in Applied Microbiology and Microbioal Biotechnology. FORMATEX, Braga, Portugal, pp. 1355–1366. Duong V.T., Ahmed F., Thomas-Hall S.R., Quigley S., Nowak E., Schenk, P.M., 2015. High Protein- and High Lipid-Producing Microalgae from Northern Australia as Potential Feedstock for Animal Feed and Biodiesel. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 3, 1–7. DOI:10.3389/fbioe.2015.00053 Ferreira A.F., Dias A.P.S., Silva C.M., Costa M., 2016. Effect of low frequency ultrasound on microalgae solvent extraction: Analysis of products, energy consumption and emissions. Algal Res. 14, 9–16. DOI:10.1016/j.algal.2015.12.015 Ferreira A.F., Ortigueira J., Alves L., Gouveia L., Moura P., Silva C.M., 2013. Energy requirement and CO2 emissions of bioH2 production from microalgal biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy 49, 249–259. DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.033 González-Fernández C., Sialve B., Bernet N., Steyer J.P., 2012. Thermal pretreatment to improve methane production of Scenedesmus biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy 40, 105–111. DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.02.008 Günerken E., D’Hondt E., Eppink M.H.M., Garcia-Gonzalez L., Elst K., Wijffels R.H., 2015. Cell disruption for microalgae biorefineries. Biotechnol. Adv. 33, 243–260. DOI:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.01.008 Kumar K., Dasgupta C.N., Nayak B., Lindblad P., Das D., 2011. Development of suitable photobioreactors for CO2 sequestration addressing global warming using green algae and cyanobacteria. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 4945–4953. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.054 Kumar R.R., Rao P.H., Arumugam M., 2015. Lipid extraction methods from microalgae : a comprehensive review 2, 1–9. DOI:10.3389/fenrg.2014.00061 1067 Li Y., Horsman M., Wu N., Lan C.Q., Dubois-calero N., 2008. Articles : Biocatalysts and Bioreactor Design. Biotechnol. Prog 24, 815–820. DOI:10.1021/bp.070371k López Barreiro D., Prins W., Ronsse F., Brilman W., 2013. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) of microalgae for biofuel production: State of the art review and future prospects. Biomass and Bioenergy 53, 113–127. DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.029 Mata T.M., Martins A.A., Caetano N.S., 2010. Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 217–232. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.020 Norambuena F., Hermon K., Skrzypczyk V., Emery J. a., Sharon Y., Beard A., Turchini G.M., 2015. Algae in Fish Feed: Performances and Fatty Acid Metabolism in Juvenile Atlantic Salmon. PLoS One 10, e0124042. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0124042 Phong W.N., Le C.F., Show P.L., Chang J.-S., Ling T.C., 2016. Extractive disruption process integration using ultrasonication and aqueous two-phase system for proteins recovery from Chlorella sorokiniana. Eng. Life Sci. DOI:10.1002/elsc.201600133 Roy S. Sen, Pal R., 2014. Microalgae in Aquaculture: A Review with Special References to Nutritional Value and Fish Dietetics. Proc. Zool. Soc. 68, 1–8. DOI:10.1007/s12595-013-0089-9 Safi C., Frances C., Ursu A.V., Laroche C., Pouzet C., Vaca-Garcia C., Pontalier P.-Y., 2015. Understanding the effect of cell disruption methods on the diffusion of Chlorella vulgaris proteins and pigments in the aqueous phase. Algal Res. 8, 61–68. DOI:10.1016/j.algal.2015.01.002 Safi C., Ursu A.V., Laroche C., Zebib B., Merah O., Pontalier, P.Y., Vaca-Garcia, C., 2014. Aqueous extraction of proteins from microalgae: Effect of different cell disruption methods. Algal Res. 3, 61–65. DOI:10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.004 Sambusiti, C., Bellucci, M., Zabaniotou, A., Beneduce, L., Monlau, F., 2015. Algae as promising feedstocks for fermentative biohydrogen production according to a biorefinery approach: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44, 20–36. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.013 Sattayasai N., 2012. Chemical Biology, in: Ekinci, P.D. (Ed.), Chemical BiologyBiology. InTech, p. 444. DOI:10.1016/0168-9525(88)90158-8 Singh R.N., Sharma S., 2012. Development of suitable photobioreactor for algae production – A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 2347–2353. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.026 Solana M., Rizza C.S., Bertucco a., 2014. Exploiting microalgae as a source of essential fatty acids by supercritical fluid extraction of lipids: Comparison between Scenedesmus obliquus, Chlorella protothecoides and Nannochloropsis salina. J. Supercrit. Fluids 92, 311–318. DOI:10.1016/j.supflu.2014.06.013 Spolaore P., Joannis-Cassan C., Duran E., Isambert A., 2006. Commercial applications of microalgae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 101, 87–96. DOI:10.1263/jbb.101.87 Taher, H., Al-Zuhair, S., Al-Marzouqi, A.H., Haik, Y., Farid, M., 2014. Effective extraction of microalgae lipids from wet biomass for biodiesel production. Biomass and Bioenergy 66, 159–167. DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.034 Tan C.H., Cheah W.Y., Ling T.C., Show P.L., Juan J.C., Chang J.-S., 2015. Algae cultivation in wastewater for biodiesel - A review 45, 1393–1398. DOI:10.3303/CET1545233 Verma N.M., Mehrotra S., Shukla A., Mishra B.N., 2010. Prospective of biodiesel production utilizing microalgae as the cell factories : A comprehensive discussion. J. Biotechnol. 9, 1402–1411. DOI:10.5897/AJBx09.071 Wang M., Yuan W., Jiang X., Jing Y., Wang Z., 2014. Disruption of microalgal cells using high-frequency focused ultrasound. Bioresour. Technol. 153, 315–321. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.054 Yang B., Liu J., Liu B., Sun P., Ma X., Jiang Y., Wei D., Chen F., 2015. Development of a stable genetic system for Chlorella vulgaris—A promising green alga for CO2 biomitigation. Algal Res. 12, 134–141. DOI:10.1016/j.algal.2015.08.012 1068