Comparison of different algal cell disruption methods

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/11/2021
Views (315) Download (27)

Comparison of different algal cell disruption methods

Fakhra Aslam, Arifa Tahir , Iram Naz, Maryam Waseem
Int. J. Biosci.19( 5), 60-66, November 2021.
Certificate: IJB 2021 [Generate Certificate]


A wide range of different commercial products ranging from biofuels, biomolecules to nutraceuticals is associated with microalgae. The vital step is the disruption of the cell wall which assists in the release of intracellular products that are essential for the production of these products. The cell wall disruption process needs lots of energy and time. Various methods for rupturing the cell wall including mechanical and non-mechanical methods, have been used. Herein, a detailed review of possible cell disruption procedures of microalgae cells is provided, considering their benefits and drawbacks. This study investigated the use of ultrasonication, osmotic shock and freezing-thaw method as laboratory-scale disruption methods for microalgal cells. The cell disruption degree was investigated and the cell morphology before and after disruption was assessed with scanning and transmission electron microscopy. UV absorbance (260 nm) was used as the quantification method to compare the cell wall disruption rate. The highest disruption degree, up to 100 %, was achieved by the freezing-thaw method to achieve intra-cellular proteins.


Arnal JM, Sancho M, Iborra I, Gozálvez JM, Santafé A, Lora J. 2005. Concentration of brines from RO desalination plants by natural evaporation. Desalination 182, 435–439.

Bharathiraja B, Chakravarthy M, Kumar RR, Yogendran D, Yuvaraj D, Jayamuthunagai J. 2015. Aquatic biomass (algae) as a future feed stock for bio-refineries: a review on cultivation, processing and products. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 47, 634–653.

Burden DW. 2012. Guide to the disruption of biological samples. Random Primers 12(1), 1-25.

Canelli G, Murciano Martínez P, Maude Hauser B, Kuster I, Rohfritsch Z, Dionisi F, Mathys A. 2021. Tailored enzymatic treatment of Chlorella vulgaris cell wall leads to effective disruption while preserving oxidative stability. LWT-Food science and technology 143.

Cooney M, Young G, Nagle N. 2009. Extraction of biooils from microalgae. Separation & Purification Reviews 38(4), 291-325.

Cooney M, Young G, Nagle N. 2009. Extraction of bio–oils from microalgae. Separation and  Purification Reviews 38, 291–325.

Griffiths MJ, Harrison ST. 2009. Lipid productivity as a key characteristic for choosing algal species for biodiesel production. Journal of Applied Phycology 21(5), 493-507.

Halim R, Harun R, Danquah MK, Webley PA. 2012. Microalgal cell disruption for biofuel          development. Applied Energy 91(1), 116-121.

Henderson R, Parsons SA, Jefferson B. 2008.The impact of algal properties and pre-oxidation on solid–liquid separation of algae. Water research 42(8-9), 1827-1845.

Lee JY, Yoo C, Jun SY, Ahn CY, Oh HM. 2010. Comparison of several methods for effective lipid extraction from microalgae. Bioresource technology 101(1), S75-S77.

McMillan JR, Watson IA, Ali M, Jaafar W. 2013. Evaluation and comparison of algal cell disruption methods: microwave, waterbath, blender, ultrasonic and laser treatment. Applied energy 103, 128-134.

Mendes-Pinto MM, Raposo MFJ, Bowen J, Young AJ, Morais R. 2001. Evaluation of different cell disruption processes on encysted cells of Haematococcus pluvialis: effects on astaxanthin recovery and implications for bio-availability. Journal of Applied Phycology 13(1), 19-24.

Mercer P, Armenta RE. 2011. Developments in oil extraction from microalgae. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 113(5), 539-547.

Phong WN, Show PL, Ling TC, Juan JC, Ng  EP, Chang JS. 2018. Mild cell disruption methods for bio-functional proteins recovery from microalgae—Recent developments and future perspectives. Algal research 31, 506-516.

Safi C,  Ursu AV,  Laroche C, Zebib B, Merah O, Pontalier PY,  Vaca-Garcia  C. 2014. Aqueous extraction of proteins from microalgae: effect of different cell disruption methods. Algal Research 3, 61-65.

Sambusiti C, Bellucci M, Zabaniotou A, Beneduce L,  Monlau  F. 2015. Algae as promising feed stocks for fermentative biohydrogen production according to a biorefinery approach: a comprehensive review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44, 20-36.

Sheng J, Vannela R, Rittmann BE. 2012. Disruption of Synechocystis PCC 6803 for lipid extraction. Water Science and Technology 65(3), 567-573.

Singh A, Nigam PS, Murphy JD. 2011. Renewable fuels from algae: an answer to debatable land based fuels. Bioresource technology 102(1), 10-16.

Spiden EM, Scales PJ, Kentish SE, Martin GJ. 2013. Critical analysis of quantitative indicators of cell disruption applied to Saccharomyces cerevisiae processed with an industrial high pressure homogenizer. Biochemical engineering journal 70, 120-126.

Spiden EM, Scales PJ, Kentish SE, Martin GJO. 2013. Critical analysis of quantitative indicators of cell disruption applied to Saccharomyces cerevisiae processed with an industrial high pressure homogenizer. Biochemical Enginering journal 70, 120–126.

Wang M, Yuan W, Jiang X, Jing Y, Wang Z. 2014. Disruption of microalgal cells using high-frequency focused ultrasound. Bioresource technology 153, 315-321.

Zhang R, Chen J, Zhang X. 2018. Extraction of intracellular protein from Chlorella pyrenoidosa using a combination of ethanol soaking, enzyme digest, ultrasonication and homogenization techniques. Bioresource technology 247, 267-272.