Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Algal Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/algal

The scientometric research on macroalgal biomass as a source of

biofuel feedstock
Michele Silveira Coelho a, Fabiana Gonalves Barbosa b, Michele da Rosa Andrade Zimmermann de Souza a,
a
Chemistry and Food College, Federal University of Rio Grande, Zip Code 96203-900 Rio Grande, RS, Brazil
b
Department of Biology, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Zip Code 52171-900 Recife, PE, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We performed a scientometric analysis to determine the main trends and gaps in the studies on macroalgal
Received 28 November 2013 biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock conducted between 1945 and 2013. We used the database from the
Received in revised form 23 October 2014 Thomson Institute for Scientic Information. We found 160 papers published in 78 journals. The number of pa-
Accepted 1 November 2014
pers on using macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock over the years has increased, especially in
Available online 11 November 2014
the last four years of the study period. The majority of the publications were from Asia (79 papers) and Europe
Keywords:
(60 papers). Ulva spp. and Saccharina spp. were the most studied genera of macroalgae. Nine biofuel types
Macroalgae (bio-oil, bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas, biomethane, biohydrogen, biochar, bio-crude and hydrochar) produced
Macroalgae biofuels from macroalgae were studied, with bioethanol being the most studied. The important gaps in the research
Scientic production that need to be addressed are that few studies have been conducted in countries situated in climatic zones
Scientometric analysis that favor the large-scale cultivation of algae for biofuel production (particularly countries from Africa and
South America), as well as on some types of biofuels (e.g., biohydrogen, biochar, and hydrochar).
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Over the last few decades, the world has been facing serious environ-
mental and economic problems, such as non-renewable fossil fuel deple-
tion (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) and global climate change [1].
Therefore, the generation of energy from sources other than fossil fuels
is necessary for the reduction of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
as well as for addressing issues regarding energy security [2]. Biofuels are
a potential alternative energy source [3] because they offer various ben-
ets related to economics, energy security, and the environment (see
Table 1 given in Hoekman [4] for an overview of the major benets of
biofuels in each of these areas). In this context, studies have been con-
ducted to identify promising biomass sources of biofuel feedstock [5,3],
including macroalgal biomass [68].
Macroalgal biomass has several favorable traits and advantages as a
source of biofuel feedstock, such as fast growth rate and large biomass
yield with superior productivity compared with many terrestrial crops.
For example, 3.3.11.3 kg dry weight m2 yr1 for non-cultured and
up to 13.1 kg dry weight m2 over 7 months for cultured brown algae
can be produced, compared with 6.19.5 kg fresh weight m2 yr1 for
sugar cane (see Ross et al. [9] and Wei et al. [8] for more traits and ad-
vantages and Kraan [10] for more values of productivity). However,
each species has its characteristic life history strategy that must be
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: michrandrade@gmail.com (M.R.A.Z. Souza).
understood [11]. For instance, large-scale kelp cultivation could have
unknown impacts (e.g., biomass losses, dissolved polysaccharide losses
or an undesirably high nutrient uptake) with consequences for local pri-
mary productivity. Moreover, the end use of algae cultivation would in-
volve carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; during its use, the nutrients
extracted by kelp cultivation, for example, may be transferred to other
ecosystem compartments (e.g., some nutrients are released back into
the ocean) [12]. Algal cultivation not only provides biofuel feedstock
but also has a high potential for carbon dioxide (CO2) remediation
[13], once macroalgae biomass reaches a higher rate of CO2 xation
compared with terrestrial biomass [14]; however, this idea remains
controversial (see Buschmann et al. [12] for discussion). Furthermore,
in comparison to other feedstocks (e.g., crops, food waste, and trees),
macroalgal biomass can provide a high-yield source of biofuels without
compromising arable land, food supplies or rainforests [15], and it is
known as the third-generation feedstock for the production of biofuels
[3]. Although macroalgal biomass has several favorable traits and ad-
vantages as a source of biofuel feedstock, its large-scale, low-cost pro-
duction still faces numerous challenges [11,16]. It is necessary to nd
technologies capable of making each step of the process economically
feasible, including macroalgae cultivation, harvesting, transport, pre-
treatment and the effective conversion of biomass (or its specic com-
ponents) into high-yielding biofuels [8]. At the same time, large-scale
algal cultivation can cause both negative and positive impacts in marine
and coastal environments [6,8]; thus, a balance between the production
of biofuels from macroalgae and their environmental cost must be
attained [8].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.11.001
2211-9264/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M.S. Coelho et al. / Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138 133

Table 1 2. Material and methods

Journals that published about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock during
the period of 19452013.
The literature used in this study was found in the Web of Knowledge
Journal title Publication Publication (IFa) online database (v.4.10 Web of Science) from the Thomson Reuters
numbers numbers (%) Inc. (available at www.isiknowledge.com), in April 2014. We used the
1 Bioresource Technology 41 25.62 5.039 following combination of words: macroalgae or seaweed and bio-
2 Journal of Applied Phycology 10 6.25 2.492 fuel* or green energy* or renewable energy* or hydrogen* or
3 Energy and Fuels 6 3.75 2.733
biohydrogen* or bio-oil* or pyrolysis* or biogas* or bioenergy
4 Journal of Analytical and Applied 4 2.50 3.070
Pyrolysis or biomethan* or bioethanol* or biodiesel* for the topic search.
5 Energies 3 1.87 1.602 The majority of these search terms were designed based on previous
6 Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 3 1.87 3.821 scientometric studies on algae and bio-energy [22] and related research
7 Renewable and Sustainable Energy 3 1.87 5.510 [23].
Reviews
8 Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy 2 1.25 0.796
Our scientometric analysis of macroalgal biomass as a source of bio-
9 Energy 2 1.25 4.159 fuel feedstock differs from the study conducted by Konur [22] on algae
10 Biotechnology and Bioprocess 2 1.25 1.220 and bio-energy on different points. For instance, Konur [22] conducted
Engineering the scientometric analysis on bio-energy and algae (microalgae and
11 Journal of Microbiology and 2 1.25 1.320
macroalgae), but his study did not quantify the number of papers pub-
Biotechnology
12 Plos One 2 1.25 3.534 lished on bioenergy and microalgae nor on bioenergy and macroalgae.
13 Journal of Supercritical Fluids 2 1.25 2.571 Here we evaluated new components (e.g., the genera of macroalgae
14 Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2 1.25 1.790 and the type of biofuel studied). Moreover, Konur [22] conducted the
15 Journal of Thermal Analysis and 2 1.25 2.206 search of the terms related to algae in the topic and the terms related
Calorimetry
to bio-energy in the title, while we conducted the survey to include
16 Energy Conversion and Management 2 1.25 3.590
17 Science 2 1.25 31.477 both algae and bio-energy in the title. The search for publications is sen-
18 Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 2 1.25 1.823 sitive to the keywords used as well as to the location of the keywords
19 Journal of Industrial Microbiology and 2 1.25 2.505 (e.g., in the topic or in the title) (see Konur [23] for more explanations).
Biotechnology
Initially, the search resulted in a total number of 385 papers. Next,
20 Energy Sources Part A-Recovery 2 1.25 0.358
Utilization and Environmental Effects
we analyzed each of the 385 papers to identify only the studies on
21 Renewable Energy 2 1.25 3.361 macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock. A total of 225 pa-
22 Biomass and Bioenergy 2 1.25 3.411 pers were excluded because many studies were on the impacts of oil/
23 Marine Policy 2 1.25 2.621 petroleum on macroalgae and/or the use of microalgae for biofuel pro-
24 Applied Energy 2 1.25 5.261
duction. Therefore, 160 papers were used for our scientometric analysis
25 Water Science and Technology 2 1.25 1.212
26 Process Biochemistry 2 1.25 2.524 of macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock in the period be-
27 (Other journalsb) 52 32.50 tween 1945 and 2013.
IFa, impact factor of the journals for 2013. For each paper, we identied i) the document type, ii) the year of
Other journalsb, journals that contained only one publication. publication, iii) the journal of publication and its impact factor for
2013, iv) the Web of Science category of the journal, v) the number of
citations, vi) the country of publication, vii) the research institution,
Globally, there is a very large number of macroalgae species classied viii) the author, ix) the species and/or genera of macroalgae studied,
as brown (Phaeophyta), green (Chlorophyta), and red (Rhodophyta) [17]. and x) the type of biofuel studied. Papers originating from England,
Similar to other feedstocks, the macroalgal biomass has also been used Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales were grouped under the United
for the production of different types of biofuels, such as gaseous fuels Kingdom heading [25]. As is common in other scientometric studies,
(e.g., biogas, biomethane and biohydrogen) [6,7] or liquid fuels we estimated the contribution of different countries and research insti-
(e.g., biodiesel, bio-oil, biobutanol and bioethanol) [18,19]. Macroalgal tutions by the location of the afliation of the rst author of each publi-
biomass has either been converted to biofuels through techniques, in- cation [22,23]. We determined the contribution of authors based on the
cluding fermentation, gasication, hydrothermal liquefaction, and py- complete count strategy [25]. We obtained the journal impact factors
rolysis [18], or it is used as biofuel for direct combustion [20]. reported in the 2013 Edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The
Scientometric analysis is a research method used to quantify the species of macroalgae were classied within the major macroalgal
state-of-the-art of a particular eld [21]. In the eld of new emerging taxonomic groups: brown (Phaeophyta), green (Chlorophyta) or
renewable energies, scientometric studies have been widely used to red (Rhodophyta).
identify patterns and trends as well as to detect gaps [2224,15]. For in- The Generalized Linear Model (family distribution = Poisson) was
stance, Konur [22] conducted a scientometric study on algae (microalgae used to identify possible trends over time in the number of papers on
and macroalgae) and bio-energy based on publications from 1980 to macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock. We generated multi-
2010 and found that the literature on this issue has grown exponentially, ple regression models in order to identify possible explanatory variables
reaching a total of 717 papers that use academic journal publications re- to explain the number of papers published on macroalgal biomass as a
garding the use of algae for biofuels and the extent to which these capa- source of biofuel feedstock based on the contribution of the countries.
bilities exist in developing countries. Adenle et al. [15] showed that the We initially considered four explanatory variables as possible predictors.
USA and Europe are responsible for the majority of the papers published These were: (i) the Average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (in dollars)
and patented on algae biofuels. from 2013, (ii) the CO2 emissions (in metric tons per capita) from 2010,
In this context, a precise view on macroalgal biomass as a source of (iii) fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total) from 2011, and (iv) com-
biofuel feedstock is necessary to reach a reliable evaluation of its scien- bustible renewables and waste (% of total energy) from 2011. These data
tic production. In this study, we performed a scientometric analysis of were obtained from the database of the World Bank [26] (available at
macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock on papers from the www.worldbank.org/data), in April 2014. We then employed Pearson
period of 1945 to 2013. More specically, this analysis aims to i) identify correlations to verify multicollinearity among explanatory variables. We
the patterns and trends in this research, and ii) demonstrate the main found a negative correlation (Pearson r = 0.63, P b 0.001, N = 23) be-
gaps on this subject, which may serve as a potential guide for future tween fossil fuel energy consumption and combustible renewables as
research. well as between the CO2 emissions and combustible renewables (Pearson
134 M.S. Coelho et al. / Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138
r = 0.52, P b 0.01, N = 23). Therefore, we considered the average
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), CO2 emissions, and fossil fuel energy con-
sumption. Seven distinct models were created based on combinations of
the three explanatory variables. We used model selection to compare the
likelihood of different models. The best model was given as the one for
which the lowest value of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was
found [27]. The analyses were conducted in the R environment [28].
3. Results and discussion
A total of 160 papers regarding macroalgal biomass as a source of
biofuel feedstock were published between 1945 and 2013. Since 1978,
there has been some concern over the rate of depletion of world re-
serves of fossil fuels, especially crude oil. However, from 1978 to 2010,
few papers (35 papers) were published, comprising 21.87 % of the sam-
ple, and in several years no paper emerged on this subject. The number
of papers has increased over the years (z = 10.34, P b 0.001, N = 19)
(Fig. 1). Our results showed an increase in the number of publications
on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock over time, espe-
cially in the period comprised between 2011 and 2013, which might re-
ect the increasing concern in reducing global GHG emissions and the
increasing attention to energy security. This increase in the number of
publications on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock
may also be associated with the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into
force in 2005. In addition, previous scientometric studies found a grow-
ing academic interest in alternative renewable energy resources in re-
cent decades [2224,29]. For instance, Konur [22], using publications
from 1980 to 2010, found that the number of papers on algae and bio-
energy was higher during the last decade of that period, comprising
48.8 % of the sample.
Most document types are journal articles (81.25 %), followed by re-
views (6.87 %), proceeding papers (6.25%), articles/proceeding papers
(3.75%), meeting abstracts (1.25%) and news items (0.62%), following
the general pattern noted by Konur [23]. The studies were published
in 78 journals distributed as follows: fty-two of them contained only
one paper, nineteen contained only two papers, three of them contained
three papers, one of them contained four papers, one of them contained
six papers, one of them contained ten papers and one of them contained
forty-one papers. The Bioresource Technology journal published the
most papers (41 papers). The mean impact factor (IF) of the journals
was 3.614 (N = 78). This pattern suggests that studies on macroalgal
biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock have been performed in several
research areas besides those of energy or biofuel. For instance, some
Fig. 1. Generalized Linear Model (family distribution = Poisson) adjusted to the data of
the number of papers published about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock
in relation to the year of publication.
papers were published in journals of environmental sciences, engineer-
ing, international relations, and plants science (e.g., Bioprocess and
Biosystems Engineering and Marine Policy), and most of the papers
were published in journals with a high impact factor (e.g., Bioresource
Technology and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review). Moreover,
Bioresource Technology, the journal that had the most publications on
this issue, also favored studies on algae and bio-energy [22].
We identied 44 Web of Science categories of the journals that pub-
lished on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock (Fig. 2).
The four most common subject areas were Biotechnology and Applied
Microbiology (22.13%), Energy and Fuels (21.86%), Agricultural Engi-
neering (11.47%) and Engineering, Chemical (8.19%). These results
demonstrate that this research area is interdisciplinary, following a sim-
ilar pattern in biofuels research [22,23].
The impact of the research in a specic eld may be measured by the
citation analysis [30]. Many papers were cited (124 out of 160 papers),
however 36 papers were never cited and 76 of the papers were only
cited 15 times (Fig. 3). The most cited publication was John et al. [31],
which received 117 citations. Other heavily cited publications were
Ross et al. [9] (106 citations) and Zhou et al. [18] (73 citations). Only
35% of the papers were cited more than ve times, which does support
the pattern suggested by Gareld [30], according to whom most publica-
tions are never cited or are cited only a few times. John et al. [31] is
among the most cited papers, who studied the production of bioethanol
from macroalgae. The other two highly cited publications are studies
classifying macroalgae as fuel, as well as on their thermochemical behav-
ior by means of thermogravimetric analysis methods [9] and on the pro-
duction of bio-oil from macroalgae [18].
Researchers from 23 countries published studies on the production
of biofuel from macroalgae (Fig. 4). South Korea, China, the United
Kingdom (UK) and the United States (USA) had the most publications
(28, 22, 19 and 12 publications, respectively). Most of the scientic pro-
duction from South Korea reects the plans of the government to re-
place fossil fuels with renewable source energy, and their target is that
11% of the primary energy should be supplied from renewable sources
of energy by 2030 [32]. Moreover, South Korea, being surrounded by
the ocean on three sides, has a natural advantage for culturing algae
[15] and is currently among the countries that produce the most algae
[33]. China is the world's largest producer of cultivated seaweed and
has a history of technical innovation and development in this area.
The Scottish Association for Marine Science has established a working
relationship with the Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute (YSFRI)
and the Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, and there are indica-
tions that the Chinese are now actively assessing the potential to
use macroalgae as a source of biofuel [34]. The UK government has a
number of policies designed to support the renewable energy industry
and is committed to increasing the proportion of energy used from re-
newable sources. The government will help businesses develop in this
area to put the UK at the forefront of new renewable technologies
[35]. Most of the scientic production from the USA reects its high
investment in infrastructure and research [36], following the general
pattern noted in previous scientometric studies on new emerging re-
newable sources of energy [23,24,37]. The Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007 [38], which aims to increase energy efcien-
cy and the availability of renewable sources of energy, may also have
aroused the interest of the USA to develop research on renewable fuels.
According to AIC, a model based on the GDP best explained the num-
ber of papers published on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel
feedstock, incorporating contribution of different countries (Table 2).
According to this model, countries with the largest number of papers
were those with a higher GDP (Table 2). In fact, the most economically
developed countries usually have universities and research centers with
a good level of infrastructure for research (equipment, technicians, re-
search libraries, properly furnished laboratories, etc.), which is why
they can devote more resources to research and produce more publica-
tions [36,39]. Moreover, previous scientometric analyses showed that
 M.S. Coelho et al. / Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138 135

Fig. 2. Web of Science category of the journals that published about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock during the period of 19452013. As most of the journals publish papers
on different subjects, the same paper was classied into different categories. Therefore, due to this overlap, the percentage of publications considering each category is greater than 100%.
Biotechnol. Appl. Microbiol. = Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology; Agricultural Eng. = Agricultural Engineering; Eng. Chemical = Engineering, Chemical; Environ. Sci. = Environmental
Sciences; Eng. Environ. = Engineering, Environmental; Mar. Freshwater Biol. = Marine and Freshwater Biology; Chem. Multidisciplinary = Chemistry Multidisciplinary. Chem. Analyt-
ical = Chemistry Analytical; Multidisciplinary Sci. = Multidisciplinary Sciences; Biochem. Mol. Biol. = Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Chem. Applied = Chemistry Applied; Food
Sci. Technol. = Food Science and Technology; Environ. Studies = Environmental Studies; Chem. Physical = Chemistry Physical; Materials Sci. Multidisciplinary = Materials Science Mul-
tidisciplinary; Chem. Medicinal = Chemistry Medicinal; Computer Sci. = Computer Science; others = Web of Science category that contained only one publication.

high scientic production correlated with each country's economic de-
velopment [40,41].
The greatest number of papers was published by researchers from
Asia (79 papers), followed by Europe (60 papers), North America (13
papers), Oceania (four papers), South America (three papers) and
Africa (one paper). One possible explanation for this result is the high
farming technology and experience in the cultivation of algae from
East Asian countries (i.e., China, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, and
South Korea) [6,15]. In 2010, these countries accounted for 95% of the
world's supply of macroalgae [7]. In a recent scientometric study on
the use of algae (macroalgae and microalgae) for biofuel production,
Adenle et al. [15] showed that Europe was responsible for 38% of 566
total papers published between 1974 and 2010. Romo-Fernndez
et al. [42] conducted a scientometric study on renewable sources of
energy in Europe using publications from 2002 to 2007 and found that
Europe accounts for 40% of the global production. According to Adenle
et al. [15], many countries, particularly in Africa, the Middle East,
South America, South Asia and Oceania, are situated in climatic zones fa-
vorable for large-scale cultivation of algae for biofuel production. In the
present study, the low representation of countries in Africa and South
America might have several explanations, such as fewer resources for

Fig. 4. Countries that published about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock
Fig. 3. Number of publications in relation to the number of citations received. during the period of 19452013.
136 M.S. Coelho et al. / Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138

Table 2
Upper: Summary of the model selection approach showing the top three models and the Table 4
worse models consisting of different explanatory variables that presumably affect the Authors that published about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock during
number of papers published by countries about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel the period of 19452013.
feedstock. For each model, consider the respective values of the adjusted of the coefcient
Authors Publication Publication
of determination (R2) as well as the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Bottom: statistical
numbers numbers (%)
analysis of the best model selected.
1 Ross, A.B.; United Kingdom 6 0.84
Model rank Models Adjusted R2 AIC 2 Kim, S.K.; South Korea 6 0.84
1 GDP 0.171 157.616 3 Jeong, G.T.; South Korea 5 0.70
2 GDP + Fossil 0.183 160.246 4 Jiang, X.M.; China 5 0.70
3 CO2 + GDP 0.171 160.56 5 Yan, H.X.; China 5 0.70
6 Anastasakis, K.; United Kingdom 4 0.56
6 GDP + CO2 + Fossil 0.185 163.472 7 Wang, S.; China 4 0.56
7 CO2 + Fossil 0.035 164.057 8 Jones, J.M.; United States 4 0.56
9 Carrere, H.; France 4 0.56
Explanatory variable Coefcient Std. Error t value Pr (N|t|) 10 Zhao, H.; China 4 0.56
11 Maceiras, R.; Spain 4 0.56
Intercept 5.15 1.637 3.146 0.004 12 Sanchez, A.; Spain 4 0.56
GDP b.001 b.001 2.08 0.048 13 Hughes, A.D.; United Kingdom 3 0.42
The explanatory variables: GDP = Average Gross Domestic Product, CO2 = carbon diox- 14 Kelly, M.S.; United Kingdom 3 0.42
ide emissions and Fossil = fossil fuel energy consumption. 15 Stanley, M.S.; United Kingdom 3 0.42
16 Horn, S.J.; Norway 3 0.42
17 Han, X.X.; China 3 0.42
18 Qin, S.; China 3 0.42
scientic studies and lack of technological familiarity in the cultivation 19 Cancela, A.; Spain 3 0.42
of algae (see Adenle et al. [15] for more explanations). Thus, future stud- 20 Debowski, M.; Poland 3 0.42
ies are needed in countries situated in climatic zones favorable for large- 21 Zielinski, M.; Poland 3 0.42
scale cultivation of algae for biofuel production (particularly countries 22 Grala, A.; Poland 3 0.42
23 Dudek, M.; Poland 3 0.42
from Africa and South America) and with high farming technology
24 Jard, G.; France 3 0.42
and experience in algae cultivation (East Asian countries). These studies 25 Meinita, M.D.N.; South Korea 3 0.42
26 Hong, Y.K.; South Korea 3 0.42
27 de Leon, R.L.; Philippines 3 0.42
28 Borines, M.G.; Philippines 3 0.42
Table 3 29 Ra, C.H.; South Korea 3 0.42
Research institutions that published about macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feed- 30 Delgenes, J.P.; France 3 0.42
stock during the period of 19452013. 31 Steyer, J.P.; France 3 0.42
32 Lee, S.E.; South Korea 3 0.42
Research institutions Publication Publication
33 Choi, W.Y.; South Korea 3 0.42
numbers numbers (%)
34 Kang, D.H.; South Korea 3 0.42
1 Pukyong National University, South Korea 10 6.25 35 Lee, H.Y.; South Korea 3 0.42
2 University Leeds, United Kingdom 6 3.75 36 Dibenedetto, A.; Italy 3 0.42
3 Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research 5 3.12 37 Black, K.D.; United Kingdom 3 0.42
Institute, India 38 Pilavtepe, M.; Turkey 2 0.28
4 Kangwon National University, South Korea 4 2.50 39 Celiktas, M.S.; Turkey 2 0.28
5 Tech University, Denmark 4 2.50 40 Sargin, S.; Turkey 2 0.28
6 James Cook University, Australia 4 2.50 41 Yesil-Celiktas, O.; Turkey 2 0.28
7 Chinese Academy of Sciences, China 4 2.50 42 Mou, H.J.; China 2 0.28
8 Tokyo University, Japan 4 2.50 43 Li, J.H.; China 2 0.28
9 University Warmia and Mazury, Poland 3 1.87 44 Sinag, A.; Turkey 2 0.28
10 National Institute for Agricultural Research, France 3 1.87 45 Kim, S.S.; South Korea 2 0.28
11 Ege University, Turkey 3 1.87 46 Aresta, M.; Italy 2 0.28
12 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China 3 1.87 47 Wang, Z.H.; China 2 0.28
13 Korea Institute Industrial Technology, South Korea 3 1.87 48 Wang, J.; South Korea 2 0.28
14 Norwegian University, Norway 3 1.87 49 Wang, Q.; China 2 0.28
15 Dankook University, South Korea 3 1.87 50 Wang, G.Y.; China 2 0.28
16 Scottish Association for Marine Science, 3 1.87 51 Ly, H.V.; South Korea 2 0.28
United Kingdom 52 Woo, H.C.; South Korea 2 0.28
17 University Philippines, Philippines 3 1.87 53 Kim, S.H.; South Korea 2 0.28
18 University Hawaii, United States 3 1.87 54 Suganya, T.; India 2 0.28
19 SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, Norway 2 1.25 55 Renganathan, S.; India 2 0.28
20 Aarhus University, Denmark 2 1.25 56 Sun, B.B.; China 2 0.28
21 University of Maryland Medical Center, Spain 2 1.25 57 Dong, S.S.; China 2 0.28
22 Fundan University, China 2 1.25 58 Bird, M.I.; Australia 2 0.28
23 Aberystwyth University, United Kingdom 2 1.25 59 Nielsen, H.B.; South Korea 2 0.28
24 University Bari, Italy 2 1.25 60 Bruhn, A.; Denmark 2 0.28
25 Lund University, Sweden 2 1.25 61 Campbell, I.; Scotland 2 0.28
26 Anna University, India 2 1.25 62 Adams, J.M.M.; United Kingdom 2 0.28
27 Jiangsu University, China 2 1.25 63 Zhou, D.; China 2 0.28
28 University Minho, Portugal 2 1.25 64 Aasen, I.M.; Norway 2 0.28
29 Shandong University, China 2 1.25 65 Ostgaard, K.; Norway 2 0.28
30 University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia 2 1.25 66 Coppola, F.; Italy 2 0.28
31 University Cool Dublin, Ireland 2 1.25 67 Dumas, C.; France 2 0.28
32 Qingdao University, China 2 1.25 68 Ji, H.S.; China 2 0.28
33 Ocean University, China 2 1.25 69 McHenry, M.P.; Philippines 2 0.28
34 University Siena, Italy 2 1.25 70 Park, S.M.; South Korea 2 0.28
35 University Venezia, Italy 2 1.25 71 Park, J.M.; South Korea 2 0.28
36 (Other research institutionsa) 55 34.37 72 (Other authorsa) 516 72.27

(Other research institutionsa), research institutions that contained only one publication. (Other authorsa), authors that contained only one publication.
 M.S. Coelho et al. / Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138 137

Table 5 Table 6
Macroalgae genera found in the publications about macroalgal biomass as a source of bio- Types of biofuels studied from macroalgae during 19452013.
fuel feedstock during the period of 19452013.
Biofuel Publication number Publication number (%)
Macroalgae genera Publication numbers Publication numbers (%)
1 Bioethanol 52 31.70
1 Ulva 56 16.67 2 Biogas 27 16.46
2 Saccharina 35 10.42 3 Bio-oil 16 9.76
3 Laminaria 27 8.03 4 Biodiesel 16 9.76
4 Sargassum 23 6.84 5 Biomethanea 5 3.05
5 Gracilaria 18 5.36 6 Biohydrogen 2 1.22
6 Gelidium 18 5.36 7 Biochar 2 1.22
7 Fucus 15 4.46 8 Bio-crude 1 0.61
8 Chaetomorpha 13 3.87 9 Hydrochar 1 0.61
9 Macrocystis 10 2.98 a
Resulting from biogas concentration.
10 Undaria 8 2.38
11 Kappaphycus 8 2.38
12 Alaria 6 1.78
13 Eucheuma 6 1.78 which are potential biochemical feedstocks for the production of liquid
14 Caulerpa 6 1.78 biofuels, such as bioethanol [10,11]. However, it is the lack of easily
15 Cladophora 5 1.49
fermented sugar polymers such as starch, glucose or sucrose in
16 Pelvetia 4 1.19
17 Palmaria 3 0.89
macroalgae that makes the fermentation process difcult, and some
18 Codium 3 0.89 studies [19,31,56] have focused on this subject. The polysaccharides
19 Pyropia 3 0.89 found in macroalgae require either a new commercial process to break
20 Zostera 2 0.59 down into their constituent monomers prior to fermentation or a direct
21 Hypnea 2 0.59
fermentation process yet to be developed [56]. In addition, four types of
22 Pilayella 2 0.59
23 (Other macroalgae generaa) 63 18.75 biofuels (biohydrogen, biochar, hydrochar, and bio-crude) appeared in a
few papers the rst two in only two papers and the last two in only one
(Other macroalgae generaa), macroalgae genera mentioned in only one publication.
Laminaria japonica is now known as Saccharina japonica and Laminaria saccharina is now paper. Through hydrothermal liquefaction, biomass is decomposed to
known as Saccharina latissima [43]. Genus Enteromorpha was transferred to the genus Ulva form new products that include a bio-crude fraction also known as bio-
[45]. Porphyra genus is now known as Pyropia genus [46]. oil (see more in Cantrell et al. [57]), a char fraction, a water fraction,
and a gaseous fraction. Hydrogen produced by macroalgae is a popular
can be done via international collaboration and are of considerable im- attraction in the development of renewable energy [58]. Potential bio-
portance to mitigate this gap in knowledge. mass sources for the production of biohydrogen by anaerobic fermenta-
Studies on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock were tion are L. japonica (brown alga) and Gelidium amansii (red alga) [59].
performed in 90 research institutions (Table 3). Pukyong National Uni-
versity, South Korea, was the institution that published most frequently
4. Conclusion
(10 papers). A total of 714 authors contributed to this issue (Table 4)
and of these, 516 authors were credited in one paper. The authors and
Our scientometric analysis showed a growing interest for macroalgal
research institutions that most contributed to macroalgal biomass as a
biomass (especially Laminaria spp., Ulva spp. and Saccharina spp.)
source of biofuel feedstock were mainly from Asia (Philippines, South
as a source of feedstock biofuel (bioethanol, biogas, bio-oil, biodiesel,
Korea, and Turkey), Europe (Italy, Denmark, Poland, and UK), and the
biomethane, biohydrogen, biochar, bio-crude and hydrochar) especially
USA (Tables 3 and 4). This domination in publication number is not sur-
during the last four years (20102013). Bioethanol was the most studied
prising because these were also the countries that published the most
biofuel from macroalgal biomass. The present study shows that research
on macroalgal biomass as source of biofuel feedstock.
on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock is highly concen-
We registered 86 macroalgae genera in the publications on macroalgal
trated in a few countries (South Korea, China and United Kingdom). The
biomass as a source of biofuel feedstock (Table 5). Ulva spp., Saccharina
relatively small number of studies conducted in countries situated in cli-
spp. and Laminaria spp. were the most studied genera, which are the
matic zones favorable for the large-scale cultivation of algae (particularly
main focuses in 56, 35 and 27 papers, respectively. The most studied
countries from Africa and South America) and in some types of biofuels
species for Ulva spp. were Ulva lactuta, Enteromorpha prolifera and
(e.g., biohydrogen, biochar, and hydrochar), as well as more internation-
Enteromorpha clathrata (genus now currently known as Ulva) [43]. In
al cooperation studies, are some important gaps that need to be ad-
this study, we also classied 43.16% of the species as Phaeophyta
dressed. Moreover, large-scale production should be more productive
(brown macroalgae), 37.39% as Chlorophyta (green macroalgae), and
and low-cost to be environmental and economically feasible. More stud-
19.45% as Rhodophyta (red macroalgae). According to Bruton et al. [44],
ies on the improvement and modication of each step involved in the
Laminaria spp. (brown macroalgae) and Ulva spp. (green macroalgae)
conversion of macroalgae biomass into biofuels are needed mainly to un-
are presently the most promising macroalgae genera for biofuel produc-
derstand how to reduce underlying costs and to spread the use of this
tion. Moreover, Laminaria spp. is the genus of macroalgae most produced
biomass.
by aquaculture, where Laminaria japonica (is now known as Saccharina
japonica) [45] accounts for over 30% of the world's production of
macroalgae biomass [7]. Acknowledgments
Forty-two papers were on macroalgal biomass as a source of biofuel
feedstock in general. Nine biofuel types produced from macroalgae MSC received research fellowship from the CAPES. FGB received
were studied in 160 of the papers analyzed (Table 6). Bioethanol was research fellowship from the CNPq (Post-Doc scholarship #246048/
the most studied, appearing in 52 papers, followed by biogas (27 papers), 2012-3).
bio-oil (16 papers) and biodiesel (16 papers). The high number of papers
on the production of bioethanol may be related to the use of the main References
classes of macroalgae (i) brown [4749], (ii) green [5052], and (iii) red
[5355] to produce this biofuel. Moreover, some species of macroalgae [1] M.Z. Jacobson, Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy se-
curity, Energy Environ. Sci. 2 (2009) 148173.
(e.g., Ascophyllum, Porphyra, Ulva, and Palmaria) [56] possess high levels [2] A. Demirbas, Biomass energy-related environmental policy, Energy Sources Part B 5
of structural polysaccharides, such as fucoidan, laminarin and mannitol, (2010) 178184.
138 M.S. Coelho et al. / Algal Research 6 (2014) 132138
[3] P.S. Nigam, A. Singh, Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources, Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 37 (2011) 5268.
[4] S.K. Hoekman, Biofuels in the U.S. challenges and opportunities, Renew. Energy 34
(2009) 1422.
[5] R.E.H. Sims, W. Mabee, J.N. Saddler, M. Taylor, An overview of second generation
biofuel technologies, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 15701580.
[6] A.D. Hughes, M.S. Kelly, K.D. Black, M.S. Stanley, Biogas from macroalgae: is it time
to revisit the idea? Biotechnol. Biofuels 5 (2012) 86.
[7] K.A. Jung, S.R. Lim, Y. Kim, J.M. Park, Potentials of macroalgae as feedstocks for
biorenery, Bioresour. Technol. 135 (2013) 182190.
[8] N. Wei, J. Quarterman, Y.S. Jin, Marine macroalgae: an untapped resource for pro-
ducing fuels and chemicals, Trends Biotechnol. 31 (2013) 7077.
[9] A.B. Ross, J.M. Jones, M.L. Kubacki, T. Bridgeman, Classication of macroalgae as fuel
and its thermochemical behavior, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 64946504.
[10] S. Kraan, Mass cultivation of carbohydrate rich macroalgae, a possible solution for
sustainable biofuel production, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 18 (2013) 2746.
[11] G. Roesijadi, S.B. Jones, L.J. Snonden-Swan, Y. Zhu, Macroalgae as a Biomass Feedstock: A
Preliminary Analysis, US DOE, 2010. (PNNL-19944).
[12] A.H. Buschmann, S. Prescott, P. Potin, S. Faugeron, J.A. Vsquez, C. Camus, J. Infante,
M.C. Hernndez-Gonzlez, A. Guterrez, D.A. Varela, The status of kelp exploitation
and marine agronomy, with emphasis on Macrocystis pyrifera, in Chile, Adv. Bot.
Res. 7 (2014) 161188.
[13] F. Murphy, G. Devlin, R. Deverell, K. McDonnell, Biofuel production in Ireland an
approach to 2020 targets with a focus on algal biomass, Energies 6 (2013)
63916412.
[14] K. Gao, K.R. McKinley, Use of macroalgae for marine biomass production and CO2
remediation a review, J. Appl. Phycol. 6 (1994) 4560.
[15] A.A. Adenle, G.E. Haslam, L. Lee, Global assessment of research and development for
algae biofuel production and its potential role for sustainable development in devel-
oping countries, Energ Policy 61 (2013) 182195.
[16] G. Roesijadi, A.E. Copping, M.H. Huesemann, J. Forster, J.R. Benemann, Techno-
economic feasibility analysis of offshore seaweed farming for bioenergy and
biobased products, Battelle Pacic Northwest Division Report Number PNWD-
3931, 2008.
[17] V.K. Dhargalkar, X.N. Verlecar, Southern ocean seaweeds: a resource for exploration
in food and drugs, Aquaculture 287 (2009) 229242.
[18] D. Zhou, L. Zhang, S. Zhang, H. Fu, J. Chen, Hydrothermal liquefaction of macroalgae
Enteromorpha prolifera to bio-oil, Energy Fuel 24 (2010) 40544061.
[19] M.G. Borines, R.L. Leon, M.P. Mchenry, Bioethanol production from farming non-
food macroalgae in Pacic island nations: chemical constituents, bioethanol yields,
and prospective species in the Philippines, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15 (2011)
44324435.
[20] A. Demirbas, Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels
and chemicals, Energy Convers. Manag. 42 (2001) 13571378.
[21] W.W. Hood, C. Wilson, The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and
informetrics, Scientometrics 52 (2001) 291314.
[22] O. Konur, The scientometric evaluation of the research on the algae and bio-energy,
Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 35323540.
[23] O. Konur, The scientometric evaluation of the research on the production of
bioenergy from biomass, Biomass Bioenergy 47 (2012) 504515.
[24] L.M. Romo-Fernandez, V.P. Guerrero-Bote, F. Moya-Anegon, World scientic pro-
duction on renewable energy, sustainability and the environment, Energy Sustain.
Dev. 16 (2012) 500508.
[25] X.J. Liu, L.A. Zhang, S. Hong, Global biodiversity research during 19002009: a
bibliometric analysis, Biodivers. Conserv. 20 (2011) 807826.
[26] WORLD BANK, World Development Indicators Database, 2013, Available from:
http://data.worldbank.org.
[27] D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic
methods, J. Wildl. Manag. 66 (2002) 912918.
[28] R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Founda-
tion for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2013, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available
from:http://www.R-project.org/.
[29] Y. Kajikawa, Y. Takeda, Structure of research on biomass and bio-fuels: a citation-
based approach, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 75 (2008) 13491359.
[30] E. Gareld, The history and meaning of the journal impact factor, J. Am. Med. Assoc.
295 (2006) 9093.
[31] R.P. John, G.S. Anisha, K.M. Nampoothiri, A. Pandey, Micro and macroalgal biomass:
a renewable source for bioethanol, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 186193.
[32] S.W. Kim, K. Lee, K. Nam, The relationship between CO2 emissions and economic
growth: the case of Korea with nonlinear evidence, Energy Policy 38 (2010)
59385946.
[33] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), FAO Statistical
Yearbook 2012: World Food and AgricultureAvailable from: http://www.fao.
org/economic/ess/ess-publications/ess-yearbook/yearbook2012/en/.
[34] M.A. James, A review of initiatives and related R&D being undertaken in the UK and
internationally regarding the use of macroalgae as a basis for biofuel production and
other non-food uses relevant to Scotland, Report Commissioned by the Marine
Scotland, 2010, p. 79.
[35] Department of Energy and Climate Change, Renewable Energy: About Renewable
Energy Policy, 2012, Available from: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/
meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renewable_ener.aspx.
[36] R.M. May, The scientic wealth of nations, Science 275 (1997) 793796.
[37] F. Manzano-Agugliaro, A. Alcayde, F.G. Montoya, A.Z. Sierra, C. Gil, Scientic production
of renewable energies worldwide: an overview, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 18 (2013)
134143.
[38] U.S. Congress, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (HR 6. 110th Congress.
1st Session)Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-
independence-and-security-act.
[39] D.A. King, The scientic impact of nations, Nature 430 (2004) 311316.
[40] S. Xie, J. Zhang, Y.S. Ho, Assessment of world aerosol research trends by bibliometric
analysis, Scientometrics 77 (2008) 113130.
[41] L. Zhang, M.H. Wang, J. Hu, Y.S. Ho, A review of published wetland research,
19912008: ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration, Ecol. Eng. 36 (2010)
973980.
[42] L.M. Romo-Fernandez, C. Lopez-Pujalte, V.P. Guerrero Bote, F. Moya-Anegn, Analy-
sis of Europe's scientic production on renewable energies, Renew. Energy 36
(2011) 25292537.
[43] H.S. Hayden, J. Blomster, C.A. Maggs, P.C. Silva, M.J. Stanhope, J.R. Waaland, Linnaeus
was right all along: Ulva and Enteromorpha are not distinct genera, Eur. J. Phycol. 38
(2003) 277294.
[44] T. Bruton, H. Lyons, Y. Lerat, M. Stanley, M.B. Rasmussen, A Review of the Potential of
Marine Algae as a Source of Biofuel in Ireland, 2009, Available from: http://www.
biofuelstp.eu/viewreport.php?viewid=13.
[45] C.E. Lane, C. Mayes, L.D. Druehl, G.W. Saunders, A multi-gene molecular investiga-
tions of the kelp (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae) supports substantial taxonomic re-
organization, J. Phycol. 42 (2006) 493512.
[46] J.E. Sutherland, S.C. Lindstrom, W.A. Nelson, J. Brodie, M.D.J. Lynch, M.S. Hwang, H.G.
Choi, M.M.N. Kikuchi, M.C. Oliveira, T. Farr, C.N.A. Mols-Mortensen, D. Milstein, K.M.
Mller, A new look at an ancient order: generic revision of the bangiales (Rhodophyta),
J. Phycol. 47 (2011) 11311151.
[47] C.H. Ra, S.K. Kim, Optimization of pretreatment conditions and use of a two-stage
fermentation process for the production of ethanol from seaweed, Saccharina japonica,
Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 18 (2013) 715720.
[48] M.G. Borines, R.L. Leon, J.L. Cuello, Bioethanol production from the macroalgae
Sargassum spp. Bioresour. Technol. 138 (2013) 2229.
[49] J.M. Adams, J.A. Gallagher, I.S. Donnison, Fermentation study on Saccharina latissima
for bioethanol production considering variable pre-treatments, J. Appl. Phycol. 21
(2009) 569574.
[50] N. Trivedi, V. Gupta, C.R. Reddy, B. Jha, Enzymatic hydrolysis and production of
bioethanol from common macrophytic green alga Ulva fasciata Delile, Bioresour.
Technol. 150 (2013) 106112.
[51] M. Pilavtepe, M.S. Celiktas, S. Sargin, O.Y. Celiktas, Transformation of Posidonia
oceanica residues to bioethanol, Ind. Crop. Prod. 51 (2013) 348354.
[52] N.S. Jensen, A. Thygesen, F. Leipold, S.T. Thomsen, C. Roslander, H. Lilholt, A.B.
Bjerre, Pretreatment of the macroalgae Chaetomorpha linum for the production
of bioethanol comparison of ve pretreatment technologies, Bioresour.
Technol. 140 (2013) 3642.
[53] M.D.N. Meinita, B. Marhaeni, T. Winanto, G.T. Jeong, M.N.A. Khan, Y.K. Hong, Com-
parison of agarophytes (Gelidium, Gracilaria, and Gracilariopsis) as potential re-
sources for bioethanol production, J. Appl. Phycol. 25 (2013) 19571961.
[54] S. Kumar, R. Gupta, G. Kumar, D. Sahoo, R.C. Kuhad, Bioethanol production from
Gracilaria verrucosa, a red alga, in a biorenery approach, Bioresour. Technol. 135
(2013) 150156.
[55] J.H. Park, J.Y. Hong, H.C. Jang, S.G. Oh, S.H. Kim, J.J. Yoon, Y.J. Kim, Use of Gelidium
amansii as a promising resource for bioethanol: a practical approach for continuous
dilute-acid hydrolysis and fermentation, Bioresour. Technol. 108 (2012) 8388.
[56] S. Kraan, Algal polysaccharides, novel applications and outlook, in: C.F. Chang (Ed.),
Carbohydrates Comprehensive Studies on Glycobiology and Glycotechnology,
ISBN: 978-953-51-0864-1, 2012.
[57] K. Cantrell, K. Ro, D. Mahajan, M. Anjom, P.G. Hunt, Role of thermochemical conver-
sion in livestock waste-to-energy treatments: obstacles and opportunities, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 26 (2007) 89188927.
[58] R. Rajkumar, Z. Yaakob, M.S. Takriff, Potential of the micro and macro algae for bio-
fuel production: a brief review, Bioresources 9 (2014) 128.
[59] J.H. Park, J.J. Yoon, H.D. Park, Y.J. Kim, D.J. Lim, S.H. Kim, Feasibility of biohydrogen
production from Gelidium amansii, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (2011) 1399714003.