Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-06T02:57:09.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Carbon capture by biological methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2025

Xiaomin Liang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Sensing & Ocean College, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, 316021, China
Yitao Duan
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Sensing & Ocean College, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, 316021, China
Yixi Su
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Sensing & Ocean College, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, 316021, China Ocean Research Center of Zhoushan, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, China
Jiwei Chen
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Sensing & Ocean College, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, 316021, China
Mingmin Zhang
Affiliation:
Zhejiang Institute of Tianjin University, Zhejiang, China
Xianming Ye
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, https://ror.org/00g0p6g84 University of Pretoria , Pretoria, South Africa
Weiqi Fu*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Sensing & Ocean College, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, 316021, China Ocean Research Center of Zhoushan, https://ror.org/00a2xv884 Zhejiang University , Zhoushan, China Center for Systems Biology and Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
*
Corresponding author: Weiqi Fu; Email: weiqifu@zju.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To address the global climate crisis, it is urgent to achieve carbon neutrality by the mid-21st century, balancing carbon emissions and carbon absorption from the atmosphere. This study examines the current advancements in biological methods for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) in response to global climate change, emphasizing the importance of sequestering CO2 through biological carbon capture and utilization. First, we present an overview of typical carbon capture methods, including geological and oceanic carbon storage. We then highlight the significance of utilizing photosynthetic organisms, such as plants, algae and microorganisms, for carbon capture and sequestration. We also analyze the role of photosynthesis in carbon capture and explore the potential of microbial carbon capture, examining the impact of environmental factors on capture efficiency. Additionally, we discuss the development of symbiotic approaches to enhance carbon fixation capacity. Finally, this review provides key insights into the challenges and future directions in advancing the field of biological carbon capture to achieve carbon neutrality.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

This review establishes biological carbon capture, leveraging plants, algae and microorganisms, as an indispensable nature-based solution critical to achieving the urgent global target of mid-century carbon neutrality. Through rigorous assessment of current progress and potential, the study demonstrates that optimizing photosynthetic efficiency and harnessing microbial metabolism provide scalable pathways for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and flue gas. This approach transcends passive carbon storage by emphasizing biological utilization, converting captured carbon into valuable bioproducts. Critically, advancing these biotechnologies promises to diversify and strengthen our climate mitigation arsenal substantially, complementing engineered approaches such as geological carbon storage. Success hinges on enhancing efficiency through a deeper understanding of environmental modulators and deploying integrated symbiotic systems. Ultimately, accelerating innovation in the biological carbon capture field is not merely scientifically significant but an urgent necessity. Establishing effective strategies to redress the anthropogenic imbalance in the global carbon cycle through practical, sustainable and universally applicable solutions is a critical strategic priority. This endeavor is paramount for mitigating the most severe and potentially irreversible consequences of anthropogenic climate change for ecosystems and human societies worldwide.

Introduction

The acceleration of anthropogenic activities globally promotes greenhouse gas emissions, leading to a significant rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released “Climate Change 2023” in March 2023, which established that the global surface temperature from 2011–2020 increased by 1.1 °C compared to 1850–1900 and is projected to rise by an additional 1.5 °C between 2021 and 2040 (Gayathri et al., Reference Gayathri, Mahboob, Govindarajan, Al-Ghanim, Ahmed, Al-Mulhm, Vodovnik and Vijayalakshmi2021; Shu et al., Reference Shu, Chen, Huang and Fu2022). Reports indicate that CO2 constitutes 76% of total greenhouse gas emissions, with current atmospheric CO2 levels at approximately 420 ppm (Saravanan et al., Reference Saravanan, Senthil kumar, Vo, Jeevanantham, Bhuvaneswari, Anantha Narayanan, Yaashikaa, Swetha and Reshma2021). Consequently, achieving global carbon neutrality through urgent CO₂ emission reduction is imperative. This necessitates a dual strategy: curtailing fossil fuel consumption to mitigate emissions and deploying carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies to reduce atmospheric CO₂ (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Ahn, Lee, Jeong, Park, Shin and Jung2021; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Liaquat, Zeshan, A and Bano2022).

According to the latest literature, by the end of 2024, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations had reached levels approximately 52% higher than preindustrial values (around 278 ppm circa 1750). Concurrently, anthropogenic CO₂ emissions for 2024 are projected to reach 41.6 GtCO₂·y⁻1 (Friedlingstein et al., Reference Friedlingstein, O’Sullivan, Jones, Andrew, Hauck, Landschutzer, Le Quere, Li, Luijkx, Olsen, Peters, Peters, Pongratz, Schwingshackl, Sitch, Canadell, Ciais, Jackson, Alin, Arneth, Arora, Bates, Becker, Bellouin, Berghoff, Bittig, Bopp, Cadule, Campbell, Chamberlain, Chandra, Chevallier, Chini, Colligan, Decayeux, Djeutchouang, Dou, Rojas, Enyo, Evans, Fay, Feely, Ford, Foster, Gasser, Gehlen, Gkritzalis, Grassi, Gregor, Gruber, Gurses, Harris, Hefner, Heinke, Hurtt, Iida, Ilyina, Jacobson, Jain, Jarnikova, Jersild, Jiang, Jin, Kato, Keeling, Goldewijk, Knauer, Korsbakken, Lan, Lauvset, Lefevre, Liu, Liu, Ma, Maksyutov, Marland, Mayot, PC, Metzl, Monacci, Morgan, Nakaoka, Neill, Niwa, Nuetzel, Olivier, Ono, Palmer, Pierrot, Qin, Resplandy, Roobaert, Rosan, Roedenbeck, Schwinger, Smallman, Smith, Sospedra-Alfonso, Steinhoff, Sun, Sutton, Seferian, Takao, Tatebe, Tian, Tilbrook, Torres, Tourigny, Tsujino, Tubiello, van der Werf, Wanninkhof, Wang, Yang, Yang, Yu, Yuan, Yue, Zaehle, Zeng and Zeng2025). Given this trajectory of persistently rising emissions, the imperative to enhance carbon capture capacity has become paramount. As of the first quarter of 2025, the global operational capacity of CCUS – a critical suite of technologies for decarbonizing fossil-based industries and achieving net-zero goals – exceeds 50 million metric tons of CO₂ annually across operational facilities. Projections indicate this capacity will scale significantly to approximately 430 million tons per year by 2030, driven by ongoing large-scale demonstrations in sectors like power generation, cement production and hydrogen manufacturing (REF) (Tyagi et al., Reference Tyagi, Bhardwaj, Sinha and Dhiman2025). The main emerging carbon capture technologies can be classified into direct carbon capture, point source carbon capture, precombustion capture, biological carbon capture and ocean capture. Although microbial carbon sink currently represents a small fraction of global carbon fluxes (~70–100 Gt annually), its scalability offers transformative potential for enhanced carbon sequestration (Aguiló-Nicolau et al., Reference Aguiló-Nicolau, Iñiguez, Capó-Bauçà and Galmés2025). Furthermore, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations reached a record 420 ± 2 ppm in 2024 marking a 52% increase above preindustrial levels (278 ppm) (Friedlingstein et al., Reference Friedlingstein, O’Sullivan, Jones, Andrew, Hauck, Landschutzer, Le Quere, Li, Luijkx, Olsen, Peters, Peters, Pongratz, Schwingshackl, Sitch, Canadell, Ciais, Jackson, Alin, Arneth, Arora, Bates, Becker, Bellouin, Berghoff, Bittig, Bopp, Cadule, Campbell, Chamberlain, Chandra, Chevallier, Chini, Colligan, Decayeux, Djeutchouang, Dou, Rojas, Enyo, Evans, Fay, Feely, Ford, Foster, Gasser, Gehlen, Gkritzalis, Grassi, Gregor, Gruber, Gurses, Harris, Hefner, Heinke, Hurtt, Iida, Ilyina, Jacobson, Jain, Jarnikova, Jersild, Jiang, Jin, Kato, Keeling, Goldewijk, Knauer, Korsbakken, Lan, Lauvset, Lefevre, Liu, Liu, Ma, Maksyutov, Marland, Mayot, PC, Metzl, Monacci, Morgan, Nakaoka, Neill, Niwa, Nuetzel, Olivier, Ono, Palmer, Pierrot, Qin, Resplandy, Roobaert, Rosan, Roedenbeck, Schwinger, Smallman, Smith, Sospedra-Alfonso, Steinhoff, Sun, Sutton, Seferian, Takao, Tatebe, Tian, Tilbrook, Torres, Tourigny, Tsujino, Tubiello, van der Werf, Wanninkhof, Wang, Yang, Yang, Yu, Yuan, Yue, Zaehle, Zeng and Zeng2025). Biological carbon capture is primarily divided into ecosystem-based and industrial biological carbon sequestration (Cowie et al., Reference Cowie, Berndes, Bentsen, Brandão, Cherubini, Egnell, George, Gustavsson, Hanewinkel, Harris, Johnsson, Junginger, Kline, Koponen, Koppejan, Kraxner, Lamers, Majer, Marland, Nabuurs, Pelkmans, Sathre, Schaub, Smith, Soimakallio, Van Der Hilst, Woods and Ximenes2021; Gayathri et al., Reference Gayathri, Mahboob, Govindarajan, Al-Ghanim, Ahmed, Al-Mulhm, Vodovnik and Vijayalakshmi2021; Fu et al., Reference Fu, Li, Lin, Du, Liu, Zhu and Ren2022). Ecosystem-based carbon encompasses terrestrial systems including forests and soil alongside marine environments, specifically blue carbon ecosystems and algal-mediated sequestration pathways (Macreadie et al., Reference Macreadie, Costa, Atwood, Friess, Kelleway, Kennedy, Lovelock, Serrano and Duarte2021; Nunes, Reference Nunes2023). In soil ecosystems, synergistic interactions between microorganisms and plants augment plant-mediated carbon sequestration and liberate bioavailable nutrients through the mineralization of organic matter, thereby elevating soil fertility (Gayathri et al., Reference Gayathri, Mahboob, Govindarajan, Al-Ghanim, Ahmed, Al-Mulhm, Vodovnik and Vijayalakshmi2021). This synergistic effect establishes a self-sustaining ecosystem, promoting plant growth rates and carbon fixation. The efficiency of these processes is contingent upon environmental factors, including temperature, pH and nutrient availability (Panchal et al., Reference Panchal, Preece, Penuelas and Giri2022). The ocean carbon sink absorbed 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr⁻1 during 2023 and is projected to increase to ∼3.0 GtC yr⁻1 in 2024 (Friedlingstein et al., Reference Friedlingstein, O’Sullivan, Jones, Andrew, Hauck, Landschutzer, Le Quere, Li, Luijkx, Olsen, Peters, Peters, Pongratz, Schwingshackl, Sitch, Canadell, Ciais, Jackson, Alin, Arneth, Arora, Bates, Becker, Bellouin, Berghoff, Bittig, Bopp, Cadule, Campbell, Chamberlain, Chandra, Chevallier, Chini, Colligan, Decayeux, Djeutchouang, Dou, Rojas, Enyo, Evans, Fay, Feely, Ford, Foster, Gasser, Gehlen, Gkritzalis, Grassi, Gregor, Gruber, Gurses, Harris, Hefner, Heinke, Hurtt, Iida, Ilyina, Jacobson, Jain, Jarnikova, Jersild, Jiang, Jin, Kato, Keeling, Goldewijk, Knauer, Korsbakken, Lan, Lauvset, Lefevre, Liu, Liu, Ma, Maksyutov, Marland, Mayot, PC, Metzl, Monacci, Morgan, Nakaoka, Neill, Niwa, Nuetzel, Olivier, Ono, Palmer, Pierrot, Qin, Resplandy, Roobaert, Rosan, Roedenbeck, Schwinger, Smallman, Smith, Sospedra-Alfonso, Steinhoff, Sun, Sutton, Seferian, Takao, Tatebe, Tian, Tilbrook, Torres, Tourigny, Tsujino, Tubiello, van der Werf, Wanninkhof, Wang, Yang, Yang, Yu, Yuan, Yue, Zaehle, Zeng and Zeng2025). In addition, the ocean, the largest active carbon reservoir on Earth, stores approximately 40 trillion tons of dissolved inorganic carbon dioxide (CO2) and organic carbon (Friedlingstein et al., Reference Friedlingstein, O’Sullivan, Jones, Andrew, Bakker, Hauck, Landschützer, Le Quéré, Luijkx, Peters, Peters, Pongratz, Schwingshackl, Sitch, Canadell, Ciais, Jackson, Alin, Anthoni, Barbero, Bates, Becker, Bellouin, Decharme, Bopp, Brasika, Cadule, Chamberlain, Chandra, Chau, Chevallier, Chini, Cronin, Dou, Enyo, Evans, Falk, Feely, Feng, Ford, Gasser, Ghattas, Gkritzalis, Grassi, Gregor, Gruber, Gürses, Harris, Hefner, Heinke, Houghton, Hurtt, Iida, Ilyina, Jacobson, Jain, Jarníková, Jersild, Jiang, Jin, Joos, Kato, Keeling, Kennedy, Klein Goldewijk, Knauer, Korsbakken, Körtzinger, Lan, Lefèvre, Li, Liu, Liu, Ma, Marland, Mayot, McGuire, McKinley, Meyer, Morgan, Munro, Nakaoka, Niwa, O’Brien, Olsen, Omar, Ono, Paulsen, Pierrot, Pocock, Poulter, Powis, Rehder, Resplandy, Robertson, Rödenbeck, Rosan, Schwinger, Séférian, Smallman, Smith, Sospedra-Alfonso, Sun, Sutton, Sweeney, Takao, Tans, Tian, Tilbrook, Tsujino, Tubiello, van der Werf, van Ooijen, Wanninkhof, Watanabe, Wimart-Rousseau, Yang, Yang, Yuan, Yue, Zaehle, Zeng and Zheng2023).

Industrial biological carbon capture primarily utilizes bacteria, fungi, microalgae and other microorganisms. The biological process does not necessitate a high-purity CO2 environment, as microorganisms can effectively capture and utilize CO2 even in the presence of SO2 and NOx (Su et al., Reference Su, Xu, Brynjólfsson and Fu2023). Studies have shown that microorganisms possess the capability to metabolize CO₂ derived from anthropogenic flue gases at concentrations as low as 4.0% (v/v) (Oliveira et al., Reference Oliveira, Caetano, Mata and Martins2020). Notably, extremophilic taxa (e.g., halophiles, thermophiles) demonstrate conserved carbon sequestration functionality. The cyanobacterium Chroococcidiopsis thermalis achieves intracellular CO₂ concentrations 140× atmospheric levels during desert photosynthesis. Parallel capabilities occur in Chroococcidiopsis cubana PCC 7433, where this xerotolerant strain maintains carbon fixation within hypolithic crusts at oxygen production rates of 0.4 g O₂ g⁻1 biomass d⁻1 (Krings et al., Reference Krings, Chen, Keddie and Hingley-Wilson2023; Aguiló-Nicolau et al., Reference Aguiló-Nicolau, Iñiguez, Capó-Bauçà and Galmés2025). The potential of microbial carbon capture lies in its capacity to fix CO2 directly while concurrently generating valuable bioproducts (Duarte et al., Reference Duarte, Losada, Hendriks, Mazarrasa and Marbà2013). This technology offers new opportunities for achieving sustainable development goals. By integrating genetic engineering technologies, microorganisms can be customized for specific environmental conditions, significantly enhancing their carbon capture and conversion capacities (Onyeaka and Ekwebelem, Reference Onyeaka and Ekwebelem2023). For phytoplankton (microalgae), the carbon sequestration efficiency is predominantly governed by photosynthesis and further modulated by environmental factors including temperature, light intensity and nutrient concentrations (Yahya et al., Reference Yahya, Harun and Abdullah2020; Salehi-Ashtiani et al., Reference Salehi-Ashtiani, Mystikou, Nelson, Fu, Chaiboonchoe, Dohai, El Assal, Daakour and Alzahmi2021; Saravanan et al., Reference Saravanan, Senthil kumar, Vo, Jeevanantham, Bhuvaneswari, Anantha Narayanan, Yaashikaa, Swetha and Reshma2021; Hasnain et al., Reference Hasnain, Zainab, Ali, Abideen, Yong, El-Keblawy, Hashmi and Radicetti2023; Onyeaka and Ekwebelem, Reference Onyeaka and Ekwebelem2023). Optimizing these environmental conditions can significantly improve microalgae’s biomass production and CO2 absorption capabilities. Furthermore, microalgae are used to develop photosynthetic cell factories for synthesizing valuable bioactive compounds, such as lipids and carotenoids (Kusmayadi et al., Reference Kusmayadi, Leong, Yen, Huang and Chang2021).

In this review, we examine the recent advances in biological carbon capture methodologies. Specifically, we analyze advances in the processes and underlying mechanisms of biological carbon sequestration, with particular emphasis on photosynthetic pathways. Furthermore, we synthesize key biological carbon sequestration pathways operating within both natural ecosystems and in industry, critically evaluating the benefits and limitations inherent in these approaches. Finally, we propose strategic research directions to enhance carbon fixation efficiency and optimize resource utilization, thereby offering more effective solutions for mitigating global climate change.

The processes and mechanisms of biological carbon capture

Plants and algae mainly capture and fix carbon through photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process of synthesizing organic matter from CO2 and releasing O2, which provides the energy and material basis for the vast majority of life on Earth (Prajapati et al., Reference Prajapati, Kumar, Dayal, Gairola, Borate and Srivastava2023).

In terrestrial plants, the primary site of photosynthesis is the leaf, which contains specialized pores called stomata. These stomata serve to regulate gas exchange; under conditions of sufficient water availability, they open to allow the uptake of atmospheric CO₂ (Melo et al., Reference Melo, Yule, Barros, Rivas and Santos2021). Photosynthesis takes place within the chloroplasts, organelles in leaf cells. Chloroplasts have a double-layered membrane that encloses an internal matrix, consisting of small flat sacs surrounded by multiple single-layer membranes, known as thylakoids (Perez-Boerema et al., Reference Perez-Boerema, Engel and Wietrzynski2024).

Photosynthesis is divided into two parts: the light reaction and the dark reaction. The reaction mechanism of photosynthesis is shown in Figure 1. The light reaction occurs in the thylakoids, where the pigments in Photosystem II (PSII) transfer the energy in the light to the reaction center (RC), which excites a special chlorophyll a P680 into a strong reducing agent P680*. P680* transfers electrons to the phytin molecule (Phe) to generate P680+, which then transfers electrons in the plastoquinone (PQ) to ultimately generate plastoquinol (PQH2) (Barber, Reference Barber2003). Meanwhile, P680+ captures electrons in the (Mn)4 cluster, and this reaction is repeated four times to catalyze the conversion of two molecules of water into oxygen, protons and electrons (Shevela et al., Reference Shevela, Kern, Govindjee, Whitmarsh and Messinger2021). PQH2 is oxidized by the cytochrome b6f (cytb6f) complex, releasing electrons that are transferred to plastocyanin (PC) in the thylakoid lumen. Photosystem I (PSI) then oxidizes reduced plastocyanin and transfers electrons via ferredoxin to reduce NADP+ to NADPH. Subsequently, ATP synthase transfers H+ from the thylakoid lumen to the chloroplast stroma, while converting adenosine diphosphate (ADP) to adenosine triphosphate (ATP) (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Schubert, Könneke and Berg2021; Prasad et al., Reference Prasad, Gupta, Shabnam, Oliveira, Nema, Ansari and Bux2021; Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Wang and Chen2021). The dark reaction, also known as the Calvin-Benson cycle, occurs in the chloroplast stroma and consists of three main steps: (1) Conversion of CO2, H2O and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) in the stroma into 3-phosphoglycerate (3-PGA) under the catalysis of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco); (2) Phosphorylation of 3-PGA by ATP to intermediate 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate under the action of 3-phosphoglycerate kinase, followed by reduction of 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (GAP) by glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase using NADPH; (3) Conversion of a small portion of GAP to carbohydrates such as glucose, while the remaining GAP is used to regenerate RuBP (which requires ATP consumption) (Alami et al., Reference Alami, Alasad, Ali and Alshamsi2021; Li et al., Reference Li, Li and Ho2022; Hu et al., Reference Hu, Meng, Su, Qian and Fu2023).

Figure 1. Photosynthesis in land plants and microalgae. Abbreviations: PSII, Photosystem II; cytb6f, Cytochrome b6f; PSI, Photosystem I; PC, Plastocyanin; ATP, Adenosine triphosphate; ADP, Adenosine diphosphate; NADP+, Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate; NADPH, Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate hydrogen; RuBP, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate; Rubisco, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase; 3-PGA, 3-phosphoglycerate;GAP, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate.

To combat photorespiration and maintain high levels of biomass productivity, plants and algae have evolved CO2 concentrating mechanisms (CCMs). Some plants, such as corn and sugarcane, fix and store CO2 in the form of malate through the C4 mechanism. They then release CO2 from bundle sheath cells to participate in the Calvin-Benson cycle while generating pyruvate (Ludwig, Reference Ludwig2012). In other higher plants such as Crassulaceae plants, there is another CCM strategy called CAM (Crassulacean acid metabolism) mechanism, which fixes CO2 into malate through phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), stores it in vacuoles of plant cells at night and releases it into tissues during the day to participate in photosynthesis (Nobel, Reference Nobel1991). In microalgae, CO2 and HCO3 are transported into the cell from the environment through active transport and diffusion. Due to the alkaline environment in the cytoplasm, carbonic anhydrases (CAs) convert CO2 into HCO3, forming a high-concentration HCO3 pool. Then, HCO3− diffuses into the chloroplast stroma, where it is converted into CO2 by CAs under appropriate conditions and utilized by dark reactions (Kupriyanova et al., Reference Kupriyanova, Pronina and Los2023).

In addition, some microorganisms can oxidize inorganic molecules and use the generated chemical energy to fix CO2 into organic matter. Compared to the Calvin-Benson cycle, the carbon sequestration mechanisms of these microorganisms are different, mainly including the reductive TCA cycle, reductive acetyl-CoA pathway, 3-hydroxypropionate pathway, 3-hydroxypropionate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle, dicarboxylate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle and other pathways (Berg, Reference Berg2011; Saini et al., Reference Saini, Kapoor, Kumar, Siddiqi and Kumar2011). For the reductive TCA cycle (tricarboxylic acid cycle), citrate is cleaved to oxaloacetate and acetyl-CoA by ATP citrate lyase. Oxaloacetate undergoes a series of reduction reactions to decarboxylate into citrate, while acetyl-CoA is converted to pyruvate through pyruvate: ferredoxin oxidoreductase (POR) and then converted back to oxaloacetate via pyruvate carboxylase to participate in subsequent biochemical reactions (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Jensen, Gray, El, Wang, Lu, Becker, Campbell and Newgard2021). The reductive acetyl-CoA pathway is linear rather than cyclic and is divided into Western and Eastern branches. In the Western branch, CO2 is reduced to CO under the action of carbon monoxide dehydrogenase (CODH), and in the Eastern (methyl) branch, CO2 is reduced to methyl-CFeSP through a series of reduction reactions. Then, acetyl-CoA is synthesized by reacting with CO from the Western branch using acetyl-CoA synthase (ACS) (Ragsdale, Reference Ragsdale1991). For the 3-hydroxypropionate pathway, acetyl-CoA is converted into succinyl-CoA through a series of reactions and then regenerated into acetyl-CoA under the action of enzymes such as succinic dehydrogenase and malyl-CoA lyase (Zhao and Tian Reference Zhao and Tian2021). For the 3-hydroxypropionate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle: this cycle can be divided into two parts, the first part transforms acetyl-CoA and two molecules of bicarbonate into succinyl-CoA and the other forms two molecules of acetyl-CoA from succinyl-CoA (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Schubert, Könneke and Berg2021); For dicarboxylate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle: This mechanism is also divided into two parts, the first part involves the transformation of acetyl-CoA and two inorganic carbon to succinyl-CoA using pyruvate synthase and pyruvate carboxylase, as carboxylation enzyme and the second part involves the regeneration of acetyl-CoA from succinyl-CoA via a route similar to 4-hydroxybutyrate pathway (Garritano et al., Reference Garritano, Song and Thomas2022).

Biological carbon sequestration pathways based on natural ecosystems

Biogeochemical cycle of carbon

The biogeochemical cycle of carbon is shown in Figure 2. CO2 is a critical greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that affects the Earth’s climate. Plants and algae fix the absorbed solar energy in carbohydrates through photosynthesis and transfer it to various levels of organisms (Nunes, Reference Nunes2023). The carbon storage in the ocean is approximately 3.77 × 1013 tC, including dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) 3.70 × 1013 tC, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 6.85 × 1011 tC and particulate organic carbon (POC) 1.3–2.3 × 1010 tC (Hansell and Carlson, Reference Hansell and Carlson1998; Falkowski et al., Reference Falkowski, Scholes, Boyle, Canadell, Canfield, Elser, Gruber, Hibbard, Högberg and Linder2000; Sarmiento, Reference Sarmiento2013). The carbon storage in soil is 2.50 × 1012 tC, including 1.55 × 1012 tC of soil organic carbon (SOC) and 9.50 × 1011 tC of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) (Lal, Reference Lal2004). The circulation and exchange of carbon between these major carbon reservoirs constitute the biogeochemical cycle of carbon on Earth (Li et al., Reference Li, Wang, Yi, Wang, Santos and Liu2024).

Figure 2. Schematic process of biogeochemical cycling of carbon. Abbreviations: BCP, biological carbon pump; SCP, solubility carbon pump; CP, carbonate pump; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; POC, particulate organic carbon; RDOC, recalcitrant dissolved organic carbon; MCP, microbial carbon pump.

Land plants, microalgae and seaweed use photosynthesis to fix atmospheric CO2 in their bodies, which is an important pathway for carbon sequestration. These fixed carbons are transmitted along the food chain and oxidized, releasing energy to organisms at various levels, thereby driving the overall life activities of the community. Plant litter and animal residues are humified by soil microorganisms to form stable soil organic matter such as humus (Hedges and Oades, Reference Hedges and Oades1997). In addition, microbial residues combine with minerals through ligand exchange, hydrogen bonding and intermolecular forces, becoming part of mineral-bound organic matter (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Cui, Fu, Li, Qi, Liu, Yang, Xiao and Qiao2023). Microbial secretions can also chemically bond with mineral surfaces or be embedded in soil micropores, ultimately forming stable mineral-bound organic matter (Lavallee et al., Reference Lavallee, Soong and Cotrufo2020). Carbon from the atmosphere and soil flows into the ocean through CO2 diffusion, microbial decomposition, weathering, respiration and other processes and is then utilized by seaweed, microalgae and other organisms. Marine organisms bury carbon in seabed sediments for a long time through digestion, excretion and corpse decomposition (DeVries, Reference DeVries2022). Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was relatively stable at around 280 ppm (Beck, Reference Beck2007). After the Industrial Revolution, with the combustion of fossil fuels, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing and has exceeded 400 ppm (Major et al., Reference Major, Haszpra, Rinyu, Futó, Bihari, Hammer, Jull and Molnár2018). Human industrial and agricultural activities have become an important factor affecting the atmospheric CO2 level (Salam and Noguchi, Reference Salam and Noguchi2005; Wilberforce et al., Reference Wilberforce, Olabi, Sayed, Elsaid and Abdelkareem2021). At present, the global CO2 emissions are about 3.68 × 1010 tCO2, of which China accounts for 31.2% (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Zhang, Wu and Meng2023).

Carbon capture by microalgae and plants

The global forest area accounts for over 30% of the total land area, reaching 4 × 103 Mha. The balance of CO2 captured by photosynthesis in forests is 5.17 × 1010 tCO2·y−1, and the balance of CO2 released through respiration and forest fires is 4.25 × 1010 tCO2·y−1, with net capture of 9.17 × 109 tCO2·y−1, accounting for 24.92% of global CO2 emissions (Nunes et al., Reference Nunes, Meireles, Pinto Gomes and Almeida Ribeiro2020). The direct way to enhance forest carbon capture capacity is afforestation, which involves planting trees in areas without forests. China has the highest afforestation rate in the world. In the past decade, the forest area in southwestern China has increased by approximately 4 to 4.4 Mha (Wang et al. Reference Wang, Feng, Palmer, Liu, Fang, Bösch, O’Dell, Tang, Yang and Liu2020). There is still 67.2 Mha of land in China suitable for afforestation, with a maximum storage capacity of 3.99 × 109 tC (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Ziegler, Liang, Wang and Zeng2022).

Currently, blue carbon ecosystems (BCEs) only include mangroves, salt marsh wetlands and seagrass beds. The dynamic changes in their carbon storage can affect the blue carbon balance. BCEs have stored over 3 × 1010 tC on approximately 185 Mha of land and can still capture 2.98 × 108 tCO2·y−1 (Bertram et al., Reference Bertram, Quaas, Reusch, Vafeidis, Wolff and Rickels2021). Due to human activities and environmental pollution, BCE is suffering from large-scale losses: the annual loss rates are 1%–2% for salt marsh wetlands, 1.5% for seagrass beds and 0.4% for mangrove forests, respectively (Macreadie et al., Reference Macreadie, Costa, Atwood, Friess, Kelleway, Kennedy, Lovelock, Serrano and Duarte2021). Therefore, it is necessary to carry out BCE restoration. It is estimated that the recoverable areas are 0.2 to 3.2 Mha for salt marsh wetlands, 8.3–25.4 Mha for seagrass beds and 9–13 Mha for mangroves (Worthington and Spalding Reference Worthington and Spalding2018). If these BCEs can be successfully restored, an additional 8.41 × 108 tCO2(equivalent to 2.21% of the current global CO2 emissions) can be reduced annually by 2030 (Macreadie et al., Reference Macreadie, Costa, Atwood, Friess, Kelleway, Kennedy, Lovelock, Serrano and Duarte2021). However, currently, BCEs do not calculate the carbon capture and storage by mudflats (Tidal flats), coastal algae ecosystems, etc., due to accountability issues; therefore, blue carbon may be largely underestimated and needs to be expanded with an updated definition.

The ocean stores more CO2 than all forests, with excellent carbon capture capacity. Algae, including macroalgae (seaweed) and microalgae, are widely distributed with diverse species and large amounts (Mann and Vanormelingen, Reference Mann and Vanormelingen2013). Seaweed are one of the main primary photosynthetic organisms and are considered to have the highest productivity among plants in coastal areas, with an average of carbon capture at 5.58 × 109 tCO2 y−1 over a total area of 3.5 Mkm2, equivalent to 15.16% of global CO2 emissions (Zahed et al. Reference Zahed, Movahed, Khodayari, Zanganeh and Badamaki2021). Microalgae are a group of photosynthetic microorganisms that can grow in both marine and freshwater environments. They can rapidly capture CO2 and form biomass, making them one of the best candidates for biological carbon capture to achieve carbon neutrality (Onyeaka et al., Reference Onyeaka, Miri, Obileke, Hart, Anumudu and Al-Sharify2021; Su et al., Reference Su, Hu, Xia, Chen, Meng, Qian, Shu, Wang, Wang, Salehi-Ashtiani, Brynjólfsson, Lin, Li, Zhang, Wang, Fu and Xu2024). Photosynthesis by microalgae accounts for about 50% of O2 evolution and atmospheric CO2 capture (Mao et al., Reference Mao, Vadiveloo, Qiu and Gao2024). Future marine fertilization strategies could deploy two primary methodologies: (i) Terrestrial-sourced nutrient supplementation, involving land-based production of tailored fertilizer composites transported via subsea infrastructure beyond the continental shelf break; and (ii) Deep ocean macronutrient upwelling, utilizing wave-driven pumping systems to elevate nutrient-rich waters (400–1000 m depth) to the photic zone. Both approaches enhance micro- and macroalgal cultivation to stimulate photosynthetic carbon sequestration and macronutrient supply from the deep ocean, which involves the use of local wave power to pump deep nutrient-rich water from depths of several hundred meters to the surface, to cultivate microalgae and macroalgae, promoting their growth and helping to fix more CO2 (Rees et al., Reference Rees, Law and Woodward2006; Lovelock and Rapley, Reference Lovelock and Rapley2007; Lampitt et al., Reference Lampitt, Achterberg, Anderson, Hughes, Iglesias-Rodriguez, Kelly-Gerreyn, Lucas, Popova, Sanders and Shepherd2008; Sethi et al., Reference Sethi, Butler, Shuhaili and Vaidyanathan2020). The common microalgae species involved in carbon capture are shown in Table 1. In recent years, microalgae have been commonly used to fix CO2 from human activities in urban ecosystems. For urban ecosystems, open or closed photoreactors can be installed near major carbon emission sources such as steel plants, utilizing microalgae to reduce CO2 content in flue gas (Branco-Vieira et al., Reference Branco-Vieira, Lopes and Caetano2022). In addition, introducing microalgae into industrial wastewater, aquaculture wastewater or aquaculture can significantly reduce carbon emissions through water bodies (Ji and Liu, Reference Ji and Liu2022; Liang et al., Reference Liang, Li, Liang, Liu, Wang, Chen, Gao, Qi and Guo2024). A central research priority involves developing genetically engineered microorganisms for enhanced carbon sequestration. Proof-of-concept studies confirm that engineered microalgae strains improve CO₂ assimilation and storage kinetics. Notably, chloroplast-targeted expression of cyanobacterial fructose-1,6-bisphosphate aldolase (FBA) in Chlorella vulgaris elevated photosynthetic quantum yield and carbon fixation rates by 1.2-fold (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Liu, Ma, Guo, Liu, Wu, Jiang and Chen2017).

Table 1. Types of microorganisms for carbon capture

Note:1–7 are microalgae and 8–15 are other microorganisms. *This refers to biomass production, while the rest refers to CO2 capture.

Carbon capture by other microorganisms

In addition to microalgae, many other microorganisms (including bacteria, fungi, etc) are involved in carbon capture and are widely distributed in environments such as oceans and soils. Table 1 shows some carbon capture microorganisms. Among them, bacteria that can survive in a chemosynthetic autotrophic mode account for a large proportion, such as nitrifying bacteria, which can obtain energy by oxidizing inorganic nitrogen compounds and reducing CO2 to organic carbon, including ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms (AOMs) and nitrate-oxidizing bacteria (NOB). AOMs oxidize ammonia nitrogen to nitrite, and NOB oxidizes nitrite to nitrate. NOB, such as Nitrobacter vulgaris and Nitrococcus mobilis, use the Calvin-Benson cycle to fix CO2, while Nitrospira uses the reductive TCA cycle to fix CO2 (Elling et al., Reference Elling, Evans, Nathan, Hemingway, Kharbush, Bayer, Spieck, Husain, Summons and Pearson2022). Fe (II)-oxidizing bacteria (FeOB) synthesize organic matter by oxidizing Fe (II) to Fe (III) to obtain energy. Among FeOB, the acidophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria Leptospirillum ferriphilum can fix carbon through a reductive TCA cycle under aerobic conditions (Emerson et al., Reference Emerson, Fleming and McBeth2010; Mi et al., Reference Mi, Song, Lin, Che, Zheng and Lin2011). In addition, some bacteria fix carbon through mineralization, such as Bacillus pasteurei, which can induce CO2 or DIC to form carbonate crystals, such as calcite, and also increase soil pH through metabolic processes, thereby increasing DIC concentration and promoting the formation of carbonate crystals (Warren et al. Reference Warren, Maurice, Parmar and Ferris2001; Li et al., Reference Li, Yu, Wu, L-P and Yuan2007). Apart from bacteria, fungi such as the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) also indirectly participate in carbon fixation by affecting carbon turnover between plants and soils. AMF can fix carbon in the soil by transferring photosynthetic products from the host plant to the root hyphae of AMF, then to the outer hyphae and finally releasing them into the soil (He et al., Reference He, Wang, Wang, Zhang, Shi, Kurakov and Song2023). The presence of AMF can cause host plants to release 4%–20% of their carbon into their hyphae, which can then be buried in the soil.

Biological carbon capture in industry

Potential of microalgae for carbon capture and producing zero-carbon-emission fine chemicals

Microalgae play a crucial role in carbon capture through photosynthesis, fixing CO₂ from diverse sources, including the atmosphere, industrial waste gases and soluble carbonates. On a dry weight basis, microalgae biomass comprises approximately 50% carbon, meaning 100 tons of algal biomass can sequester roughly 183 tons of CO₂ (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Jensen, Gray, El, Wang, Lu, Becker, Campbell and Newgard2021). Due to their rapid growth and efficient nutrient absorption, microalgae effectively treat wastewater while doubling their biomass in short periods. The production of high-value coproducts further offsets carbon capture costs, enhancing economic feasibility.

In industrial applications, microalgae like Chlorella demonstrate significant environmental benefits. For instance, when cultivated in pretreated landfill leachate, Chlorella removes 91% of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 86% of total nitrogen (TN), 90% of ammoniacal nitrogen (NH₄-N) and 96% of phosphate via photosynthesis – simultaneously treating wastewater and generating biomass (Singh and Ahluwalia, Reference Singh and Ahluwalia2012). Colocating Chlorella cultivation facilities near power plants could mitigate up to 9.8 × 10⁸ kg of CO₂ emissions annually (Oliveira et al., Reference Oliveira, Caetano, Mata and Martins2020). Microalgae also utilize CO₂ from cement production flue gas, despite trace heavy metal contaminants (Olofsson et al., Reference Olofsson, Lindehoff, Frick, Svensson and Legrand2015; Lara-Gil et al., Reference Lara-Gil, Senés-Guerrero and Pacheco2016).

Beyond environmental applications, microalgae are rich sources of bioactive compounds (Figure 3), such as polyunsaturated fatty acids, carotenoids, peptides, vitamins and polysaccharides; these compounds possess substantial market size and generate significant economic contributions. For instance, the global carotenoids market reached approximately1.84 billion in 2024, with projections indicating growth to 2.842 billion by 2031. This represents a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.8% from 2025 to 2031. Separately, the DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) market was valued at around 14.4 billion in 2024 (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Yang, Sun, Yan, Chen and Fan2024). Cultivation and extraction methods influence compound yields, enabling the development of pharmaceuticals and functional foods. Research highlights microalgae extracts’ anti-inflammatory, anticancer and therapeutic potential (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Liou, Chen and Shih2011; Besednova et al., Reference Besednova, Zaporozhets, Kuznetsova, Makarenkova, Kryzhanovsky, Fedyanina and Ermakova2020; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Gu, Yang, Xu, Wang, Chen and Wang2021; Sasaki et al., Reference Sasaki, Linh, Hirano, Tominaga, Nukaga, Nozaki, Arimura and Isoda2022; Moradi et al., Reference Moradi, Aghamaali and Hadavi2023), underscoring their value in nutrition and medicine.

Figure 3. Applications of microalgae in carbon capture and production of high-value products. Abbreviations: ALE: Adaptive Laboratory Evolution; FAME: Fatty acid methyl ester.

Microalgae further benefit agriculture and animal husbandry. Microalgae-based fertilizers enhance seed germination, increase sugar and carotenoid content in tomatoes (Ferrazzano et al., Reference Ferrazzano, Papa, Pollio, Ingenito, Sangianantoni and Cantile2020) and boost rice yields (Dineshkumar et al., Reference Dineshkumar, Kumaravel, Gopalsamy, Sikder and Sampathkumar2017). As feed additives, they improve daily weight gain in livestock and poultry while optimizing fatty acid profiles via n-3 LCPUFAs (Hopkins et al., Reference Hopkins, Clayton, Lamb, van de Ven, Refshauge, Kerr, Bailes, Lewandowski and Ponnampalam2014; Madeira et al., Reference Madeira, Cardoso, Lopes, Coelho, Afonso, Bandarra and Prates2017). They also support pet gastrointestinal health by promoting beneficial microbiota (Delsante et al., Reference Delsante, Pinna, Sportelli, Dalmonte, Stefanelli, Vecchiato and Biagi2022; Cabrita et al., Reference Cabrita, Guilherme-Fernandes, Spínola, Maia, Yergaliyev, Camarinha-Silva and Fonseca2023). These dual agricultural and environmental advantages position microalgae as sustainable tools for resource recycling (Shah et al., Reference Shah, Lutzu, Alam, Sarker, Kabir Chowdhury, Parsaeimehr, Liang and Daroch2017; Saadaoui et al., Reference Saadaoui, Rasheed, Aguilar, Cherif, Al Jabri, Sayadi and Manning2021).

Finally, microalgae serve as a versatile feedstock for producing diverse biofuels – including biodiesel, methane, ethanol and butanol – through biochemical or thermochemical conversion. This capability not only offers renewable alternatives to fossil fuels but also embodies a closed-loop resource model: utilizing waste CO₂ and nutrients for cultivation, converting biomass into energy and recycling byproducts. Consequently, microalgae systems significantly advance circular economies by valorizing waste streams, reducing net emissions and sustaining resource cycles without competing with arable land.

Other biological carbon capture technologies

Beyond microalgae-based carbon capture, several alternative biological systems demonstrate significant potential for carbon sequestration, as shown in Table 2. Bacteria, in particular, are capable of biological carbon fixation and the production of high-value products. Chemoautotrophic bacteria, for instance, utilize atmospheric CO₂ as a carbon source to synthesize various organic compounds (Cantera et al., Reference Cantera, Munoz, Lebrero, Lopez, Rodriguez and Garcia-Encina2018). Specific strains, such as Halomonas stevensii, have been shown to convert CO₂ into valuable fatty alcohols like lauryl alcohol and pentanol (Claassens et al., Reference Claassens, Sanchez-Andrea, Sousa and Bar-Even2018). Furthermore, specific bacterial consortia, including methane-oxidizing bacteria (e.g., Methylophilus) and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, offer dual benefits: they effectively treat wastewater by removing ammonia while concurrently performing biological carbon fixation (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Ahn, Lee, Jeong, Park, Shin and Jung2021).

Table 2. Other biological carbon capture systems

Microbial electrosynthesis systems (MES), microbial electrolysis carbon capture (MECC), photosynthetic microbial fuel cells (pMFCs) and microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are technologies that facilitate wastewater treatment while simultaneously generating energy (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Lei, Qi, Zhen, Lu, Xu, Zhang, Liu, Zhang and Wu2022). MES can convert CO2 into biofuels, organic acids and other high-value chemicals (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Wang, Sun, Chen, Iyobosa and Zhao2023). MECC primarily utilizes microorganisms to convert organic carbon in wastewater into electricity while capturing carbon (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Tripathi, Chakraborty and Ghangrekar2023). Additionally, enzymes play an important role in the carbon capture process. Supplementing fungal-derived cellulase during the conversion of corn stover to ethanol can reduce production costs and improve carbon capture efficiency, achieving negative carbon emissions (Krings et al., Reference Krings, Chen, Keddie and Hingley-Wilson2023). Similarly, immobilized carbonic anhydrase effectively captures CO2 in an aqueous solution, by catalyzing its hydration reaction, thereby enhancing carbon capture efficiency (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Du, Gao and He2023; Lim and Jo, Reference Lim and Jo2024).

Conclusions and future perspectives

Biological carbon sequestration is mainly a process in which plants, bacteria, microalgae and other microorganisms directly fix CO2 through photosynthesis, or microorganisms fix CO2 from industrial waste gases, soluble carbonate and other sources. If all land were covered with plants, terrestrial and marine ecosystems could sequester a significant amount of CO2 each year. Although biological carbon sequestration in natural ecosystems has environmental significance, it also faces many difficulties in practical applications, mainly including: (1) Biological carbon sequestration requires a large amount of land for vegetation cultivation, which may compete with agriculture, urban development and natural ecosystems, leading to land resource conflicts; (2) Climate adaptability: the climate varies greatly in different regions, and some plants may perform well under certain climatic conditions, but may not grow well or survive in other regions; (3) Long-term ecological impacts and assessment, for example, the effects of artificial plantation and ocean fertilization on ecosystems need to be monitored and evaluated over time to ensure that these technologies have minimized adverse impacts.

Compared to biological carbon sequestration in natural ecosystems, industrial biological carbon sequestration has the advantages of efficient carbon capture, process-controlled diversification of products, efficient use of resources and capital utilization, reduced dependence on natural ecology and flexibility to cope with climate change. Microalgae are an important candidate for industrial biological carbon sequestration because of their high photosynthetic efficiency, capability to produce various valuable products, strong adaptability and wide applications. Despite substantial research on microalgae-based carbon fixation technology in recent years, several challenges remain. The isolation and purification of microalgae typically require lengthy cycles, and the carbon fixation performance of isolated strains demands further investigation, resulting in low efficiency. While genetic editing offers high transformation efficiency, the vastly different genetic backgrounds and high specificity among microalgal species limit its broad application. Continuous CO₂ influx during carbon fixation acidifies the algal culture medium, adversely impacting fixation efficiency. Sustaining elevated carbon fixation rates under high-CO₂ conditions, therefore, necessitates optimization of carbon-tolerant strain selection methods and enhanced research into genetic and metabolic engineering approaches. In addition, further optimization of bioreactor parameters is essential to improve the carbon fixation efficiency of microalgae within these systems.

At the same time, there are still challenges hindering the successful development and commercialization of microalgae-based carbon capture technologies. Specifically, economic constraints and feasibility assessments necessitate consideration of microalgal bioreactor costs, footprints and spatial requirements. At the same time, further research is needed to obtain better light conditions and higher photosynthetic efficiency at a low cost on a commercial scale. In addition, when using microalgae to treat industrial wastewater or flue gas, some toxic biomass may be generated and accumulated due to different sources. Appropriate utilization of such biomass should be developed. The development of genetic engineering technology has enabled the creation of transgenic microalgae with enhanced carbon sequestration capabilities. However, policy and regulations are important to support transgenic technologies, which remain to be addressed concerning algal technology. Through technological innovation, economic model exploration and policy support, carbon capture by biological methods will demonstrate great potential, paving the way to achieve carbon neutrality and sustainability shortly.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/cat.2025.10005.

Data availability statement

All data used in this study were cited from the literature with appropriate citations, and no data were generated in the preparation of this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Any use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the Chinese government. We thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved the manuscript.

Author contribution

Weiqi Fu led the conceptualization of the manuscript with inputs from co-authors. Xiaomin Liang and Yitao Duan led the writing of the original drafts with contributions from co-authors. All authors contributed to the revision and review of this manuscript.

Financial support

This work was supported by the Zhejiang Province Leading Geese Plan (Grant No. 2024C03110) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China Joint Fund Project (Grant No. U23A2034).

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Footnotes

X.L. and Y.D. contributed equally to this work.

References

Aguiló-Nicolau, P, Iñiguez, C, Capó-Bauçà, S and Galmés, J (2025) Boundaries of photosynthesis: Adaptations of carbon fixation in extreme environments. FEBS Open Bio. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.70047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alami, AH, Alasad, S, Ali, M and Alshamsi, M (2021) Investigating algae for CO2 capture and accumulation and simultaneous production of biomass for biodiesel production. Science of the Total Environment 759, 143529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almomani, F, Abdelbar, A and Ghanimeh, S (2023) A review of the recent advancement of bioconversion of carbon dioxide to added value products: A state of the art. Sustainability 15(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayatollahi, SZ, Esmaeilzadeh, F and Mowla, D (2021) Integrated CO2 capture, nutrients removal and biodiesel production using Chlorella vulgaris. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9(2), 104763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, J (2003) Photosystem II: The engine of life. Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics 36(1), 7189. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033583502003839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, E-G (2007) 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods. Energy & Environment 18(2), 259282. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830507780682147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, IA (2011) Ecological aspects of the distribution of different autotrophic CO2 fixation pathways. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77(6), 19251936. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02473-10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertram, C, Quaas, M, Reusch, TB, Vafeidis, AT, Wolff, C and Rickels, W (2021) The blue carbon wealth of nations. Nature Climate Change 11(8), 704709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01089-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besednova, NN, Zaporozhets, TS, Kuznetsova, TA, Makarenkova, ID, Kryzhanovsky, SP, Fedyanina, LN and Ermakova, SP (2020) Extracts and marine algae polysaccharides in therapy and prevention of inflammatory diseases of the intestine. Marine Drugs 18(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/md18060289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, MI, Wynn, JG, Saiz, G, Wurster, CM and McBeath, A (2015) The pyrogenic carbon cycle. In Jeanloz, R. and Freeman, K. H. (Eds.), Annul Review of Earth and Planetary Science (Vol. 43, pp. 273298).10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branco-Vieira, M, Lopes, M and Caetano, N (2022) Algae-based bioenergy production aligns with the Paris agreement goals as a carbon mitigation technology. Energy Reports 8, 482488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buono, S, Colucci, A, Angelini, A, Langellotti, AL, Massa, M, Martello, A, Fogliano, V and Dibenedetto, A (2016) Productivity and biochemical composition of Tetradesmus obliquus and Phaeodactylum tricornutum: Effects of different cultivation approaches. Journal of Applied Phycology 28, 31793192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-0876-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrita, ARJ, Guilherme-Fernandes, J, Spínola, M, Maia, MRG, Yergaliyev, T, Camarinha-Silva, A and Fonseca, AJM (2023) Effects of microalgae as dietary supplement on palatability, digestibility, fecal metabolites, and microbiota in healthy dogs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1245790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantera, S, Munoz, R, Lebrero, R, Lopez, JC, Rodriguez, Y and Garcia-Encina, PA (2018) Technologies for the bioconversion of methane into more valuable products. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 50, 128135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2017.12.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, C-L, Liou, S-F, Chen, S-J and Shih, M-F (2011) Protective effects of chlorella-derived peptide on UVB-induced production of MMP-1 and degradation of procollagen genes in human skin fibroblasts. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 60(1), 112119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.03.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, G, Wang, R, Sun, M, Chen, J, Iyobosa, E and Zhao, J (2023) Carbon dioxide reduction to high-value chemicals in microbial electrosynthesis system: Biological conversion and regulation strategies. Chemosphere 344, 140251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claassens, NJ, Sanchez-Andrea, I, Sousa, DZ and Bar-Even, A (2018) Towards sustainable feedstocks: A guide to electron donors for microbial carbon fixation. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 50, 195205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2018.01.019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowie, AL, Berndes, G, Bentsen, NS, Brandão, M, Cherubini, F, Egnell, G, George, B, Gustavsson, L, Hanewinkel, M, Harris, ZM, Johnsson, F, Junginger, M, Kline, KL, Koponen, K, Koppejan, J, Kraxner, F, Lamers, P, Majer, S, Marland, E, Nabuurs, GJ, Pelkmans, L, Sathre, R, Schaub, M, Smith, CT, Soimakallio, S, Van Der Hilst, F, Woods, J and Ximenes, FA (2021) Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy 13(8), 12101231. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, YH, Yu, JM, Ren, HJ and Ji, X (2022) Deglacial subantarctic CO2 outgassing driven by a weakened solubility pump. Nature Communications 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32895-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delsante, C, Pinna, C, Sportelli, F, Dalmonte, T, Stefanelli, C, Vecchiato, CG and Biagi, G (2022) Assessment of the effects of edible microalgae in a canine gut model. Animals 12(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, T (2022) The ocean carbon cycle. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47(1), 317341. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-120920-111307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dineshkumar, R, Kumaravel, R, Gopalsamy, J, Sikder, MNA and Sampathkumar, P (2017) Microalgae as bio-fertilizers for rice growth and seed yield productivity. Waste and Biomass Valorization 9(5), 793800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-9873-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, CM, Losada, IJ, Hendriks, IE, Mazarrasa, I and Marbà, N (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3(11), 961968. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilam, Y, Khattib, H, Pintel, N and Avni, D (2023) Microalgae – Sustainable source for alternative proteins and functional ingredients promoting gut and liver health. Global Challenges 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202200177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elling, FJ, Evans, TW, Nathan, V, Hemingway, JD, Kharbush, JJ, Bayer, B, Spieck, E, Husain, F, Summons, RE and Pearson, A (2022) Marine and terrestrial nitrifying bacteria are sources of diverse bacteriohopanepolyols. Geobiology 20(3), 399420. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbi.12484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, D, Fleming, EJ and McBeth, JM (2010) Iron-oxidizing bacteria: An environmental and genomic perspective. Annual Review of Microbiology 64(1), 561583. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falkowski, P, Scholes, RJ, Boyle, E, Canadell, J, Canfield, D, Elser, J, Gruber, N, Hibbard, K, Högberg, P and Linder, S (2000) The global carbon cycle: A test of our knowledge of earth as a system. Science 290(5490), 291296. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5490.291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feisthauer, S, Wick, LY, Kästner, M, Kaschabek, SR, Schlömann, M and Richnow, HH (2008) Differences of heterotrophic 13CO2 assimilation by pseudomonas knackmussii strain B13 and Rhodococcus opacus 1CP and potential impact on biomarker stable isotope probing. Environmental Microbiology 10(6), 16411651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01573.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrazzano, GF, Papa, C, Pollio, A, Ingenito, A, Sangianantoni, G and Cantile, T (2020) Cyanobacteria and microalgae as sources of functional foods to improve human general and oral health. Molecules 25(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25215164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedlingstein, P, Jones, MW, O’Sullivan, M, Andrew, RM, Hauck, J, Peters, GP, Peters, W, Pongratz, J, Sitch, S, Le Quéré, C, Bakker, DCE, Canadell, JG, Ciais, P, Jackson, RB, Anthoni, P, Barbero, L, Bastos, A, Bastrikov, V, Becker, M, Bopp, L, Buitenhuis, E, Chandra, N, Chevallier, F, Chini, LP, Currie, KI, Feely, RA, Gehlen, M, Gilfillan, D, Gkritzalis, T, Goll, DS, Gruber, N, Gutekunst, S, Harris, I, Haverd, V, Houghton, RA, Hurtt, G, Ilyina, T, Jain, AK, Joetzjer, E, Kaplan, JO, Kato, E, Klein Goldewijk, K, Korsbakken, J I, Landschützer, P, Lauvset, SK, Lefèvre, N, Lenton, A, Lienert, S, Lombardozzi, D, Marland, G, McGuire, PC, Melton, JR, Metzl, N, Munro, DR, Nabel, JEMS, Nakaoka, S-I, Neill, C, Omar, A M, Ono, T, Peregon, A, Pierrot, D, Poulter, B, Rehder, G, Resplandy, L, Robertson, E, Rödenbeck, C, Séférian, R, Schwinger, J, Smith, N, Tans, P P, Tian, H, Tilbrook, B, Tubiello, FN, van der Werf, GR, Wiltshire, AJ and Zaehle, S (2019) Global carbon budget 2019. Earth System Science Data 11(4), 17831838. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlingstein, P, O’Sullivan, M, Jones, MW, Andrew, RM, Bakker, DCE, Hauck, J, Landschützer, P, Le Quéré, C, Luijkx, IT, Peters, GP, Peters, W, Pongratz, J, Schwingshackl, C, Sitch, S, Canadell, JG, Ciais, P, Jackson, RB, Alin, SR, Anthoni, P, Barbero, L, Bates, NR, Becker, M, Bellouin, N, Decharme, B, Bopp, L, Brasika, IBM, Cadule, P, Chamberlain, MA, Chandra, N, Chau, T-T-T, Chevallier, F, Chini, LP, Cronin, M, Dou, X, Enyo, K, Evans, W, Falk, S, Feely, RA, Feng, L, Ford, DJ, Gasser, T, Ghattas, J, Gkritzalis, T, Grassi, G, Gregor, L, Gruber, N, Gürses, Ö, Harris, I, Hefner, M, Heinke, J, Houghton, RA, Hurtt, GC, Iida, Y, Ilyina, T, Jacobson, AR, Jain, A, Jarníková, T, Jersild, A, Jiang, F, Jin, Z, Joos, F, Kato, E, Keeling, RF, Kennedy, D, Klein Goldewijk, K, Knauer, J, Korsbakken, JI, Körtzinger, A, Lan, X, Lefèvre, N, Li, H, Liu, J, Liu, Z, Ma, L, Marland, G, Mayot, N, McGuire, PC, McKinley, GA, Meyer, G, Morgan, EJ, Munro, DR, Nakaoka, S-I, Niwa, Y, O’Brien, KM, Olsen, A, Omar, AM, Ono, T, Paulsen, M, Pierrot, D, Pocock, K, Poulter, B, Powis, CM, Rehder, G, Resplandy, L, Robertson, E, Rödenbeck, C, Rosan, TM, Schwinger, J, Séférian, R, Smallman, TL, Smith, SM, Sospedra-Alfonso, R, Sun, Q, Sutton, AJ, Sweeney, C, Takao, S, Tans, PP, Tian, H, Tilbrook, B, Tsujino, H, Tubiello, F, van der Werf, GR, van Ooijen, E, Wanninkhof, R, Watanabe, M, Wimart-Rousseau, C, Yang, D, Yang, X, Yuan, W, Yue, X, Zaehle, S, Zeng, J and Zheng, B (2023) Global carbon budget 2023. Earth System Science Data 15(12), 53015369. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlingstein, P, O’Sullivan, M, Jones, MW, Andrew, RM, Hauck, J, Landschutzer, P, Le Quere, C, Li, H, Luijkx, IT, Olsen, A, Peters, GP, Peters, W, Pongratz, J, Schwingshackl, C, Sitch, S, Canadell, JG, Ciais, P, Jackson, RB, Alin, SR, Arneth, A, Arora, V, Bates, NR, Becker, M, Bellouin, N, Berghoff, CF, Bittig, HC, Bopp, L, Cadule, P, Campbell, K, Chamberlain, MA, Chandra, N, Chevallier, F, Chini, LP, Colligan, T, Decayeux, J, Djeutchouang, LM, Dou, X, Rojas, CD, Enyo, K, Evans, W, Fay, AR, Feely, RA, Ford, DJ, Foster, A, Gasser, T, Gehlen, M, Gkritzalis, T, Grassi, G, Gregor, L, Gruber, N, Gurses, O, Harris, I, Hefner, M, Heinke, J, Hurtt, GC, Iida, Y, Ilyina, T, Jacobson, AR, Jain, AK, Jarnikova, T, Jersild, A, Jiang, F, Jin, Z, Kato, E, Keeling, RF, Goldewijk, KK, Knauer, J, Korsbakken, JI, Lan, X, Lauvset, SK, Lefevre, N, Liu, Z, Liu, J, Ma, L, Maksyutov, S, Marland, G, Mayot, N, PC, MG, Metzl, N, Monacci, NM, Morgan, EJ, Nakaoka, S-I, Neill, C, Niwa, Y, Nuetzel, T, Olivier, L, Ono, T, Palmer, PI, Pierrot, D, Qin, Z, Resplandy, L, Roobaert, A, Rosan, TM, Roedenbeck, C, Schwinger, J, Smallman, TL, Smith, SM, Sospedra-Alfonso, R, Steinhoff, T, Sun, Q, Sutton, AJ, Seferian, R, Takao, S, Tatebe, H, Tian, H, Tilbrook, B, Torres, O, Tourigny, E, Tsujino, H, Tubiello, F, van der Werf, G, Wanninkhof, R, Wang, X, Yang, D, Yang, X, Yu, Z, Yuan, W, Yue, X, Zaehle, S, Zeng, N and Zeng, J (2025) Global carbon budget 2024. Earth System Science Data 17(3), 9651039. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlingstein, P, O’Sullivan, M, Jones, MW, Andrew, RM, Hauck, J, Olsen, A, Peters, GP, Peters, W, Pongratz, J, Sitch, S, Le Quére, C, Canadell, JG, Ciais, P, Jackson, RB, Alin, S, Aragao, L, Arneth, A, Arora, V, Bates, NR, Becker, M, Benoit-Cattin, A, Bittig, HC, Bopp, L, Bultan, S, Chandra, N, Chevallier, F, Chini, LP, Evans, W, Florentie, L, Forster, PM, Gasser, T, Gehlen, M, Gilfillan, D, Gkritzalis, T, Gregor, L, Gruber, N, Harris, I, Hartung, K, Haverd, V, Houghton, RA, Ilyina, T, Jain, AK, Joetzjer, E, Kadono, K, Kato, E, Kitidis, V, Korsbakken, JI, Landschützer, P, Lefèvre, N, Lenton, A, Lienert, S, Liu, Z, Lombardozzi, D, Marland, G, Metzl, N, Munro, DR, Nabel, J, Nakaoka, SI, Niwa, Y, O’Brien, K, Ono, T, Palmer, PI, Pierrot, D, Poulter, B, Resplandy, L, Robertson, E, Rödenbeck, C, Schwinger, J, Séférian, R, Skjelvan, I, Smith, AJP, Sutton, AJ, Tanhua, T, Tans, PP, Tian, H, Tilbrook, B, Van der Werf, G, Vuichard, N, Walker, AP, Wanninkhof, R, Watson, AJ, Willis, D, Wiltshire, AJ, Yuan, WP, Yue, X and Zaehle, S (2020) Global carbon budget 2020. Earth System Science Data 12(4), 32693340. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, J, Li, P, Lin, Y, Du, H, Liu, H, Zhu, W and Ren, H (2022) Fight for carbon neutrality with state-of-the-art negative carbon emission technologies. Eco-Environment & Health 1(4), 259279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eehl.2022.11.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garritano, AN, Song, W and Thomas, T (2022) Carbon fixation pathways across the bacterial and archaeal tree of life. PNAS Nexus 1(5), 226. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gayathri, R, Mahboob, S, Govindarajan, M, Al-Ghanim, KA, Ahmed, Z, Al-Mulhm, N, Vodovnik, M and Vijayalakshmi, S (2021) A review on biological carbon sequestration: A sustainable solution for a cleaner air environment, less pollution and lower health risks. Journal of King Saud University – Science 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansell, DA and Carlson, CA (1998) Deep-ocean gradients in the concentration of dissolved organic carbon. Nature 395(6699), 263266. https://doi.org/10.1038/26200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasnain, M, Zainab, R, Ali, F, Abideen, Z, Yong, JWH, El-Keblawy, A, Hashmi, S and Radicetti, E (2023) Utilization of microalgal-bacterial energy nexus improves CO2 sequestration and remediation of wastewater pollutants for beneficial environmental services. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 267, 115646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.115646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, X, Wang, W, Wang, X, Zhang, B, Shi, F, Kurakov, A and Song, F (2023) The potential of Mycorrhizal fungi to increase terrestrial ecosystem carbon sink: A review. Eurasian Soil Science 56(11), 17241738. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1064229323601178.Google Scholar
Hedges, J and Oades, J (1997) Comparative organic geochemistries of soils and marine sediments. Organic Geochemistry 27(7–8), 319361. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0146-6380(97)00056-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herold, C, Ishika, T, Nwoba, EG, Tait, S, Ward, A and Moheimani, NR (2021) Biomass production of marine microalga Tetraselmis suecica using biogas and wastewater as nutrients. Biomass and Bioenergy 145, 105945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, DL, Clayton, EH, Lamb, TA, van de Ven, RJ, Refshauge, G, Kerr, MJ, Bailes, K, Lewandowski, P and Ponnampalam, EN (2014) The impact of supplementing lambs with algae on growth, meat traits and oxidative status. Meat Science 98(2), 135141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, J, Meng, W, Su, Y, Qian, C and Fu, W (2023) Emerging technologies for advancing microalgal photosynthesis and metabolism toward sustainable production. Frontiers in Marine Science 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1260709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Y, Zhang, X, Wu, J and Meng, Z (2023) Understanding the efficiency and evolution of China’s green economy: A province-level analysis. Energy & Environment 0958305X231204027. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305x231204027.Google Scholar
Ji, B and Liu, C (2022) CO2 improves the microalgal-bacterial granular sludge towards carbon-negative wastewater treatment. Water Research 208, 117865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, X, Ziegler, AD, Liang, S, Wang, D and Zeng, Z (2022) Forest restoration potential in China: Implications for carbon capture. Journal of Remote Sensing 2022, 0006. https://doi.org/10.34133/remotesensing.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin-Ching Lee, M-FH, Huang, H-W, Chang, F-R, Yeh, C-C, Tang, J-Y and Chang, H-W (2013) Marine algal natural products with anti-oxidative, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer properties. Cancer Cell International 13(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2867-13-55.Google Scholar
Khan, TA, Liaquat, R, Zeshan, K, A, H and Bano, A (2022) Biological carbon capture, growth kinetics and biomass composition of novel microalgal species. Bioresource Technology Reports 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2022.100982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, IT, Ahn, K-H, Lee, Y-E, Jeong, Y, Park, J-R, Shin, D-C and Jung, J (2021) An experimental study on the biological fixation and effective use of carbon using biogas and bacterial community dominated by methanotrophs, methanol-oxidizing bacteria, and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. Catalysts 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11111342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krings, S, Chen, YX, Keddie, JL and Hingley-Wilson, S (2023) Oxygen evolution from extremophilic cyanobacteria confined in hard biocoatings. Microbiology Spectrum 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01870-23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kubis, MR and Lynd, LR (2023) Carbon capture from corn Stover ethanol production via mature consolidated bioprocessing enables large negative biorefinery GHG emissions and fossil fuel-competitive economics. Sustainable Energy & Fuels 7(16), 38423852. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3se00353a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S, Tripathi, A, Chakraborty, I and Ghangrekar, MM (2023) Engineered nanomaterials for carbon capture and bioenergy production in microbial electrochemical technologies: A review. Bioresource Technology 389, 129809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kupriyanova, EV, Pronina, NA and Los, DA (2023) Adapting from low to high: An update to CO2-concentrating mechanisms of cyanobacteria and microalgae. Plants 12(7), 1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12071569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kusmayadi, A, Leong, YK, Yen, H-W, Huang, C-Y and Chang, J-S (2021) Microalgae as sustainable food and feed sources for animals and humans – Biotechnological and environmental aspects. Chemosphere 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lal, R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304(5677), 16231627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampitt, RS, Achterberg, EP, Anderson, TR, Hughes, J, Iglesias-Rodriguez, M, Kelly-Gerreyn, BA, Lucas, M, Popova, E, Sanders, R and Shepherd, J (2008) Ocean fertilization: A potential means of geoengineering? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366(1882), 39193945. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lara-Gil, JA, Senés-Guerrero, C and Pacheco, A (2016) Cement flue gas as a potential source of nutrients during CO2 mitigation by microalgae. Algal Research 17, 285292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavallee, JM, Soong, JL and Cotrufo, MF (2020) Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral‐associated forms to address global change in the 21st century. Global Change Biology 26(1), 261273. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, S, Li, X and Ho, S-H (2022) How to enhance carbon capture by evolution of microalgal photosynthesis? Separation and Purification Technology 291, 120951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.120951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C, Wang, Y, Yi, Y, Wang, X, Santos, CAG and Liu, Q (2024) A review of reservoir carbon cycling: Key processes, influencing factors and research methods. Ecological Indicators 166, 112511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W, Yu, L-J, Wu, Y, L-P, J and Yuan, D-X (2007) Enhancement of Ca2+ release from limestone by microbial extracellular carbonic anhydrase. Bioresource Technology 98(4), 950953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.03.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, S, Li, H, Liang, J, Liu, H, Wang, X, Chen, L, Gao, L, Qi, J and Guo, Y (2024) Synergistic effects of bivalve and microalgae co-cultivation on carbon dynamics and water quality. Marine Environmental Research 201, 106672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, GT and Jo, BH (2024) Cation-assisted stabilization of carbonic anhydrase one-step in situ loaded in diatom-inspired silica nanospheres for potential applications in CO2 capture and utilization. Separation and Purification Technology 333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.125926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J-Y, Effendi, SSW and Ng, I-S (2022) Enhanced carbon capture and utilization (CCU) using heterologous carbonic anhydrase in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii for lutein and lipid production. Bioresource Technology 351, 127009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Z, Guo, C, Bai, Y, Zhang, N, Yu, Q, Zhao, F and Lu, X (2021) Far-red chlorophyll fluorescence radiance tracks photosynthetic carbon assimilation efficiency of dark reactions. Applied Sciences 11(22), 10821. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B, Hou, L, Zheng, Y, Zhang, Z, Tang, X, Mao, T, Du, J, Bi, Q, Dong, H and Yin, G (2022) Dark carbon fixation in intertidal sediments: Controlling factors and driving microorganisms. Water Research 216, 118381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L, Schubert, DM, Könneke, M and Berg, IA (2021) (S)-3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase from the autotrophic 3-hydroxypropionate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle in Nitrosopumilus maritimus. Frontiers in Microbiology 12, 712030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.712030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovelock, JE and Rapley, CG (2007) Ocean pipes could help the earth to cure itself. Nature 449(7161), 403403. https://doi.org/10.1038/449403a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Z, Qin, GM, Gan, SC, Liu, HB, Macreadie, PI, Cheah, W and Wang, FM (2023) Blue carbon sink capacity of mangroves determined by leaves and their associated microbiome. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17007.Google ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, M (2012) Carbonic anhydrase and the molecular evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Plant, Cell & Environment 35(1), 2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02364.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macreadie, PI, Costa, MD, Atwood, TB, Friess, DA, Kelleway, JJ, Kennedy, H, Lovelock, CE, Serrano, O and Duarte, CM (2021) Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2(12), 826839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madeira, MS, Cardoso, C, Lopes, PA, Coelho, D, Afonso, C, Bandarra, NM and Prates, JAM (2017) Microalgae as feed ingredients for livestock production and meat quality: A review. Livestock Science 205, 111121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.09.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, I, Haszpra, L, Rinyu, L, Futó, I, Bihari, Á, Hammer, S, Jull, AT and Molnár, M (2018) Temporal variation of atmospheric fossil and modern CO2 excess at a central European rural tower station between 2008 and 2014. Radiocarbon 60(5), 12851299. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, DG and Vanormelingen, P (2013) An inordinate fondness? The number, distributions, and origins of diatom species. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 60(4), 414420. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mao, BD, Vadiveloo, A, Qiu, J and Gao, F (2024) Artificial photosynthesis: Promising approach for the efficient production of high-value bioproducts by microalgae. Bioresource Technology 401, 130718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2024.130718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melo, AS, Yule, TS, Barros, VA, Rivas, R and Santos, MG (2021) C3-species Calotropis procera increase specific leaf area and decrease stomatal pore size, alleviating gas exchange under drought and salinity. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 43, 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-021-03312-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mi, S, Song, J, Lin, J, Che, Y, Zheng, H and Lin, J (2011) Complete genome of Leptospirillum ferriphilum ML-04 provides insight into its physiology and environmental adaptation. The Journal of Microbiology 49, 890901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-011-1099-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moradi, F, Aghamaali, M and Hadavi, M (2023) Osteogenic differentiation of human amniotic mesenchymal stem cells by phycocyanin and phycoerythrin pigments isolated from Spirulina platensis and Gracilaria gracilis algae. Tissue and Cell 85, 102216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tice.2023.102216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nair, MS, Rajarathinam, R, Velmurugan, S and Subhani, S (2023) An optimized approach towards bio-capture and carbon dioxide sequestration with microalgae Phormidium valderianum using response surface methodology. Bioresource Technology 389, 129838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandhini, R, Sivaprakash, B, Rajamohan, N and Vo, DVN (2023) Carbon-free hydrogen and bioenergy production through integrated carbon capture and storage technology for achieving sustainable and circular economy- Areview. Fuel 342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natsi, PD and Koutsoukos, PG (2022) Calcium carbonate mineralization of microalgae. Biomimetics 7(4), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nobel, PS (1991) Achievable productivities of certain CAM plants: Basis for high values compared with C3 and C4 plants. New Phytologist 119(2), 183205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1991.tb01022.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, LJ (2023) The rising threat of atmospheric CO2: A review on the causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Environments 10(4), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10040066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, LJR (2023) The rising threat of atmospheric CO2: A review on the causes. Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies. Environments 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10040066.Google Scholar
Nunes, LJ, Meireles, CI, Pinto Gomes, CJ and Almeida Ribeiro, NM (2020) Forest contribution to climate change mitigation: Management oriented to carbon capture and storage. Climate 8(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8020021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, GM, Caetano, N, Mata, TM and Martins, AA (2020) Biofixation of CO2 emissions from natural gas combined cycle power plant. Energy Reports 6, 140146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olofsson, M, Lindehoff, E, Frick, B, Svensson, F and Legrand, C (2015) Baltic Sea microalgae transform cement flue gas into valuable biomass. Algal Research 11, 227233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyeaka, H and Ekwebelem, OC (2023) A review of recent advances in engineering bacteria for enhanced CO2 capture and utilization. Int J Environ Sci Technol (Tehran) 20(4), 46354648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04303-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyeaka, H, Miri, T, Obileke, K, Hart, A, Anumudu, C and Al-Sharify, ZT (2021) Minimizing carbon footprint via microalgae as a biological capture. Carbon Capture Science & Technology 1, 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2021.100007.Google Scholar
Panchal, P, Preece, C, Penuelas, J and Giri, J (2022) Soil carbon sequestration by root exudates. Trends in Plant Science 27(8), 749757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.04.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, HC, Savoca, MS, Costa, DP, Lomas, MW, Molina, R, Pershing, AJ, Smith, CR, Villasenor-Derbez, JC, Wing, SR and Roman, J (2023) Whales in the carbon cycle: Can recovery remove carbon dioxide? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38(3), 238249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.10.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez-Boerema, A, Engel, BD and Wietrzynski, W (2024) Evolution of thylakoid structural diversity. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 40. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-120823-022747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Planchat, A, Kwiatkowski, L, Bopp, L, Torres, O, Christian, JR, Butenschön, M, Lovato, T, Séférian, R, Chamberlain, MA, Aumont, O, Watanabe, M, Yamamoto, A, Yool, A, Ilyina, T, Tsujino, H, Krumhardt, KM, Schwinger, J, Tjiputra, J, Dunne, JP and Stock, C (2023) The representation of alkalinity and the carbonate pump from CMIP5 to CMIP6 earth system models and implications for the carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 20(7), 11951257. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prajapati, SK, Kumar, V, Dayal, P, Gairola, A, Borate, RB and Srivastava, R (2023) The role of carbon in life’s blueprint and carbon cycle understanding Erath’s essential cycling system: Blenefits and harms to our planet. International Journal 1(1), 2132. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8385430.Google Scholar
Prasad, R, Gupta, SK, Shabnam, N, Oliveira, CYB, Nema, AK, Ansari, FA and Bux, F (2021) Role of microalgae in global CO2 sequestration: Physiological mechanism, recent development, challenges, and future prospective. Sustainability 13(23), 13061. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quelhas, PM, Trovão, M, Silva, JT, Machado, A, Santos, T, Pereira, H, Varela, J, Simões, M and Silva, JL (2019) Industrial production of Phaeodactylum tricornutum for CO2 mitigation: Biomass productivity and photosynthetic efficiency using photobioreactors of different volumes. Journal of Applied Phycology 31, 21872196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-019-1750-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragsdale, SW (1991) Enzymology of the acetyl-CoA pathway of CO2 fixation. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 26(3–4), 261300. https://doi.org/10.3109/10409239109114070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, AP, Law, CS and Woodward, EMS (2006) High rates of nitrogen fixation during an in‐situ phosphate release experiment in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Geophysical Research Letters 33(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006gl025791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saadaoui, I, Rasheed, R, Aguilar, A, Cherif, M, Al Jabri, H, Sayadi, S and Manning, SR (2021) Microalgal-based feed: Promising alternative feedstocks for livestock and poultry production. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-021-00593-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadvakasova, AK, Kossalbayev, BD, Bauenova, MO, Balouch, H, Leong, YK, Zayadan, BK, Huang, Z, Alharby, HF, Tomo, T, Chang, J-S and Allakhverdiev, SI (2023) Microalgae as a key tool in achieving carbon neutrality for bioproduct production. Algal Research 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.103096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saini, R, Kapoor, R, Kumar, R, Siddiqi, TO and Kumar, A (2011) CO2 utilizing microbes-A comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances 29(6), 949960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.08.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salam, MA and Noguchi, T (2005) Impact of human activities on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions: A statistical analysis. Environmentalist 25, 1930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-005-3093-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salehi-Ashtiani, K, Mystikou, A, Nelson, DR, Fu, W, Chaiboonchoe, A, Dohai, BS, El Assal, DC, Daakour, S and Alzahmi, A (2021) High-throughput metabolic profiling for model refinements of microalgae. Journal of Visualized Experiments (178). https://doi.org/10.3791/61913-v.Google Scholar
Saravanan, A, Deivayanai, V, Kumar, PS, Rangasamy, G and Varjani, S (2022) CO2 bio-mitigation using genetically modified algae and biofuel production towards a carbon net-zero society. Bioresource Technology 363, 127982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saravanan, A, Senthil kumar, P, Vo, D-VN, Jeevanantham, S, Bhuvaneswari, V, Anantha Narayanan, V, Yaashikaa, PR, Swetha, S and Reshma, B (2021) A comprehensive review on different approaches for CO2 utilization and conversion pathways. Chemical Engineering Science 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2021.116515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarmiento, JL (2013) Ocean biogeochemical dynamics. In Ocean Biogeochemical Dynamics. Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctt3fgxqxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, K, Linh, TN, Hirano, A, Tominaga, K, Nukaga, S, Nozaki, H, Arimura, T and Isoda, H (2022) Microalgae extract induces antidepressant-like activity via neuroinflammation regulation and enhances the neurotransmitter system. Food and Chemical Toxicology 170, 113508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuchmann, K and Müller, V (2014) Autotrophy at the thermodynamic limit of life: A model for energy conservation in acetogenic bacteria. Nature Reviews Microbiology 12(12), 809821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sethi, D, Butler, TO, Shuhaili, F and Vaidyanathan, S (2020) Diatoms for carbon sequestration and bio-based manufacturing. Biology 9(8), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, MR, Lutzu, GA, Alam, A, Sarker, P, Kabir Chowdhury, MA, Parsaeimehr, A, Liang, Y and Daroch, M (2017) Microalgae in aquafeeds for a sustainable aquaculture industry. Journal of Applied Phycology 30(1), 197213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-017-1234-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shevela, D, Kern, JF, Govindjee, G, Whitmarsh, J and Messinger, J (2021) Photosystem II. eLS 2(7), 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16712-6_23.Google Scholar
Shu, Y, Chen, J, Huang, Y and Fu, W (2022) Sustainable approaches to realize carbon neutrality in China: A case study of Zhejiang Province. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, UB and Ahluwalia, AS (2012) Microalgae: A promising tool for carbon sequestration. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18(1), 7395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9393-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speliotes, EK, Willer, CJ, Berndt, SI, Monda, KL, Thorleifsson, G, Jackson, AU, Allen, HL, Lindgren, CM, Luan, JA, Mägi, R, Randall, JC, Vedantam, S, Winkler, TW, Qi, L, Workalemahu, T, Heid, IM, Steinthorsdottir, V, Stringham, HM, Weedon, MN, Wheeler, E, Wood, AR, Ferreira, T, Weyant, RJ, Segrè, AV, Estrada, K, Liang, L, Nemesh, J, Park, J-H, Gustafsson, S, Kilpeläinen, TO, Yang, J, Bouatia-Naji, N, Esko, T, Feitosa, MF, Kutalik, Z, Mangino, M, Raychaudhuri, S, Scherag, A, Smith, AV, Welch, R, Zhao, JH, Aben, KK, Absher, DM, Amin, N, Dixon, AL, Fisher, E, Glazer, NL, Goddard, ME, Heard-Costa, NL, Hoesel, V, Hottenga, J-J, Johansson, Å, Johnson, T, Ketkar, S, Lamina, C, Li, S, Moffatt, MF, Myers, RH, Narisu, N, Perry, JRB, Peters, MJ, Preuss, M, Ripatti, S, Rivadeneira, F, Sandholt, C, Scott, LJ, Timpson, NJ, Tyrer, JP, van Wingerden, S, Watanabe, RM, White, CC, Wiklund, F, Barlassina, C, Chasman, DI, Cooper, MN, Jansson, J-O, Lawrence, RW, Pellikka, N, Prokopenko, I, Shi, J, Thiering, E, Alavere, H, Alibrandi, MTS, Almgren, P, Arnold, AM, Aspelund, T, Atwood, LD, Balkau, B, Balmforth, AJ, Bennett, AJ, Ben-Shlomo, Y, Bergman, RN, Bergmann, S, Biebermann, H, Blakemore, AIF, Boes, T, Bonnycastle, LL, Bornstein, SR, Brown, MJ, Buchanan, TA, Busonero, F, Campbell, H, Cappuccio, FP, Cavalcanti-Proença, C, Chen, Y-D I, Chen, C-M, Chines, PS, Clarke, R, Coin, L, Connell, J, Day, INM, Heijer, MD, Duan, J, Ebrahim, S, Elliott, P, Elosua, R, Eiriksdottir, G, Erdos, MR, Eriksson, JG, Facheris, MF, Felix, SB, Fischer-Posovszky, P, Folsom, AR, Friedrich, N, Freimer, NB, Fu, M, Gaget, S, Gejman, PV, Geus, EJC, Gieger, C, Gjesing, P, Goel, A, Goyette, P, Grallert, H, Gräßler, J, Greenawalt, DM, Groves, CJ, Gudnason, V, Guiducci, C, Hartikainen, A-L, Hassanali, N, Hall, AS, Havulinna, AS, Hayward, C, Heath, AC, Hengstenberg, C, Hicks, AA, Hinney, A, Hofman, A, Homuth, G, Hui, J, Igl, W, Iribarren, C, Isomaa, B, Jacobs, KB, Jarick, I, Jewell, E, John, U, Jørgensen, T, Jousilahti, P, Jula, A, Kaakinen, M, Kajantie, E, Kaplan, LM, Kathiresan, S, Kettunen, J, Kinnunen, L, Knowles, JW, Kolcic, I, König, IR, Koskinen, S, Kovacs, P, Kuusisto, J, Kraft, P, Kvaløy, K, Laitinen, J, Lantieri, O, Lanzani, C, Launer, LJ, Lecoeur, C, Lehtimäki, T, Lettre, G, Liu, J, Lokki, M-L, Lorentzon, M, Luben, RN, Ludwig, B, Manunta, P, Marek, D, Marre, M, Martin, N G, McArdle, WL, McCarthy, A, McKnight, B, Meitinger, T, Melander, O, Meyre, D, Midthjell, K, Montgomery, GW, Morken, MA, Morris, AP, Mulic, R, Ngwa, JS, Nelis, M, Neville, MJ, Nyholt, DR, O’Donnell, CJ, O’Rahilly, S, Ong, KK, Oostra, B, Paré, G, Parker, AN, Perola, M, Pichler, I, Pietiläinen, KH, Platou, CGP, Polasek, O, Pouta, A, Rafelt, S, Raitakari, O, Rayner, NW, Ridderstråle, M, Rief, W, Ruokonen, A, Robertson, NR, Rzehak, P, Salomaa, V, Sanders, AR, Sandhu, MS, Sanna, S, Saramies, J, Savolainen, MJ, Scherag, S, Schipf, S, Schreiber, S, Schunkert, H, Silander, K, Sinisalo, J, Siscovick, DS, Smit, JH, Soranzo, N, Sovio, U, Stephens, J, Surakka, I, Swift, A J, Tammesoo, M-L, Tardif, J-C, Teder-Laving, M, Teslovich, TM, Thompson, JR, Thomson, B, Tönjes, A, Tuomi, T, van Meurs, JBJ, van Ommen, G-J, Vatin, V, Viikari, J, Visvikis-Siest, S, Vitart, V, Vogel, CIG, Voight, BF, Waite, LL, Wallaschofski, H, Walters, GB, Widen, E, Wiegand, S, Wild, SH, Willemsen, G, Witte, DR, Witteman, JC, Xu, J, Zhang, Q, Zgaga, L, Ziegler, A, Zitting, P, Beilby, JP, Farooqi, S I, Hebebrand, J, Huikuri, HV, James, AL, Kähönen, M, Levinson, DF, Macciardi, F, Nieminen, MS, Ohlsson, C, Palmer, LJ, Ridker, PM, Stumvoll, M, Beckmann, JS, Boeing, H, Boerwinkle, E, Boomsma, DI, Caulfield, MJ, Chanock, SJ, Collins, FS, Cupples, LA, Smith, GD, Erdmann, J, Froguel, P and Magic, . (2010) Association analyses of 249,796 individuals reveal 18 new loci associated with body mass index. Nature Genetics 42(11), 937948. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, Y, Hu, J, Xia, M, Chen, J, Meng, W, Qian, C, Shu, Y, Wang, C, Wang, X, Salehi-Ashtiani, K, Brynjólfsson, S, Lin, J, Li, Y, Zhang, H, Wang, L, Fu, W and Xu, Y-J (2024) An undiscovered circadian clock to regulate phytoplankton photosynthesis. PNAS Nexus 3(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, Y, Xu, M, Brynjólfsson, S and Fu, W (2023) Physiological and molecular insights into adaptive evolution of the marine model diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum under low-pH stress. Journal of Cleaner Production 412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, C, Sun, B, Zeeshan, M, Li, J and Zhang, X (2023) Funneliformis mosseae–induced changes of rhizosphere microbial community structure enhance Capsicum annuum L. plant growth and fruit yield. Soil Science Society of America Journal 87(4), 843855. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiwari, T, Kaur, GA, Singh, PK, Balayan, S, Mishra, A and Tiwari, A (2024) Emerging bio-capture strategies for greenhouse gas reduction: Navigating challenges towards carbon neutrality. Science of the Total Environment 172433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyagi, A, Bhardwaj, S, Sinha, AK and Dhiman, M (2025) Advances in hydrogen-driven bicarbonate conversion to formic acid and Formate salts. Chemsusche. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202500483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J, Feng, L, Palmer, PI, Liu, Y, Fang, S, Bösch, H, O’Dell, CW, Tang, X, Yang, D and Liu, L (2020) Large Chinese land carbon sink estimated from atmospheric carbon dioxide data. Nature 586(7831), 720723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2849-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, LA, Maurice, PA, Parmar, N and Ferris, FG (2001) Microbially mediated calcium carbonate precipitation: Implications for interpreting calcite precipitation and for solid-phase capture of inorganic contaminants. Geomicrobiology Journal 18(1), 93115. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490450151079833.Google Scholar
Wilberforce, T, Olabi, A, Sayed, ET, Elsaid, K and Abdelkareem, MA (2021) Progress in carbon capture technologies. Science of the Total Environment 761, 143203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worthington, T and Spalding, M (2018) Mangrove restoration potential: A global map highlighting a critical opportunity. https://doi.org/mangrove-restoration/.Google Scholar
Wu, H, Cui, H, Fu, C, Li, R, Qi, F, Liu, Z, Yang, G, Xiao, K and Qiao, M (2023) Unveiling the crucial role of soil microorganisms in carbon cycling: A review. Science of the Total Environment 168627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168627.Google Scholar
Wu, J, Gu, X, Yang, D, Xu, S, Wang, S, Chen, X and Wang, Z (2021) Bioactive substances and potentiality of marine microalgae. Food Science & Nutrition 9(9), 52795292. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xia, Y, Sekine, M, Hirahara, M, Kishinami, H, Yusoff, FM and Toda, T (2023) Effects of concentration and frequency of CO2 supply on productivity of marine microalga Isochrysis galbana. Algal Research 70, 102985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.102985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, P, Shao, S, Qian, J, Li, J, Xu, R, Liu, J and Zhou, W (2024) Scale-up of microalgal systems for decarbonization and bioproducts: Challenges and opportunities. Bioresource Technology, 130528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2024.130528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yahya, L, Harun, R and Abdullah, LC (2020) Screening of native microalgae species for carbon fixation at the vicinity of Malaysian coal-fired power plant. Scientific Reports 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79316-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, B, Liu, J, Ma, X, Guo, B, Liu, B, Wu, T, Jiang, Y and Chen, F (2017) Genetic engineering of the Calvin cycle toward enhanced photosynthetic CO2 fixation in microalgae. Biotechnology for Biofuels 10, 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0916-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yun, H-S, Ji, M-K, Park, Y-T, E-, S S and Choi, J (2016) Microalga, Acutodesmus obliquus KGE 30 as a potential candidate for CO2 mitigation and biodiesel production. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 1783117839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6971-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahed, MA, Movahed, E, Khodayari, A, Zanganeh, S and Badamaki, M (2021) Biotechnology for carbon capture and fixation: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Environmental Management 293, 112830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeng, J, Wang, Z and Chen, G (2021) Biological characteristics of energy conversion in carbon fixation by microalgae. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152, 111661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G-F, Jensen, MV, Gray, SM, El, K, Wang, Y, Lu, D, Becker, TC, Campbell, JE and Newgard, CB (2021) Reductive TCA cycle metabolism fuels glutamine-and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. Cell Metabolism 33(4), 804817. e805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2020.11.020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, JJ, Li, HL, Wiesner, MG, Ran, LH, He, XJ, Chi, GX, Wang, XY, Yu, JP and Chen, JF (2023) Biological carbon pump responses to multiscale physical processes: A review of sediment trap studies in the South China Sea. Frontiers in Marine Science 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1209686.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Yang, H, Sun, Y, Yan, B, Chen, W and Fan, D (2024) The potential use of microalgae for nutrient supply and health enhancement in isolated and confined environments. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 23(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, S and Liu, Z (2021) Advances in the biological fixation of carbon dioxide by microalgae. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 96(6), 14751495. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, P and Tian, P (2021) Biosynthesis pathways and strategies for improving 3-hydroxypropionic acid production in bacteria. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 37(7), 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-021-03091-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, C, Zhang, HB, Li, PH, Yi, YB, Zhou, YP, Wang, YT, He, C, Shi, Q and He, D (2023) Dissolved organic matter cycling revealed from the molecular level in three coastal bays of China. Science of the Total Environment 904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, X, Du, C, Gao, B and He, B (2023) Strategies to improve the mass transfer in the CO2 capture process using immobilized carbonic anhydrase. Journal of Environmental Management 332, 117370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, X, Lei, C, Qi, J, Zhen, G, Lu, X, Xu, S, Zhang, J, Liu, H, Zhang, X and Wu, Z (2022) The role of microbiome in carbon sequestration and environment security during wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment 837, 155793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Photosynthesis in land plants and microalgae. Abbreviations: PSII, Photosystem II; cytb6f, Cytochrome b6f; PSI, Photosystem I; PC, Plastocyanin; ATP, Adenosine triphosphate; ADP, Adenosine diphosphate; NADP+, Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate; NADPH, Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate hydrogen; RuBP, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate; Rubisco, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase; 3-PGA, 3-phosphoglycerate;GAP, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Schematic process of biogeochemical cycling of carbon. Abbreviations: BCP, biological carbon pump; SCP, solubility carbon pump; CP, carbonate pump; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; POC, particulate organic carbon; RDOC, recalcitrant dissolved organic carbon; MCP, microbial carbon pump.

Figure 2

Table 1. Types of microorganisms for carbon capture

Figure 3

Figure 3. Applications of microalgae in carbon capture and production of high-value products. Abbreviations: ALE: Adaptive Laboratory Evolution; FAME: Fatty acid methyl ester.

Figure 4

Table 2. Other biological carbon capture systems

Author comment: Carbon capture by biological methods — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editors,

We are enthusiastically submitting our manuscript, “Carbon Capture by Biological Methods” to Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies for publication as a review article. Our manuscript describes original, unpublished work and is not under consideration elsewhere.

To tackle the global climate crisis, there is an urgent need to achieve carbon neutrality by the middle of the 21st century, balancing carbon emissions and carbon uptake in the atmosphere. Our manuscript explores recent advances in biological approaches to carbon dioxide (CO2) management in response to global climate change and reviews recent advances in biological carbon capture approaches. We discuss advances in the processes and mechanisms of biological carbon capture, with a focus on photosynthesis. In addition, we summarize biological carbon sequestration pathways based on natural ecosystems and industry and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Finally, the development direction of biological carbon capture is proposed further to improve carbon fixation capacity and resource utilization efficiency, to provide a more effective solution to global climate change.

We believe that this review provides comprehensive information and valuable insights into carbon capture by biological methods in response to global climate change. We thank you in advance for considering our manuscript for publication in Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies.

Sincerely,

Weiqi Fu, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Marine Science, Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China;

Adjunct Professor

Center for Systems Biology &

Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Computer Science, School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, University of Iceland

Emails: weiqifu@zju.edu.cn; weiqi@hi.is

Review: Carbon capture by biological methods — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Carbon Capture by Biological Methods

Xiaomin Liang, Yitao Duan, Yixi Su, Jiwei Chen, Mingmin Zhang, Xianming Ye, Weiqi Fu

Summary:

This review paper discusses biological carbon capture and sequestration. It provides an overview as to the general nature of the carbon cycle, including major natural sinks, then gives an overview as to the biology and chemistry behind photosynthesis, including carbon concentrating mechanisms and the mechanisms by which some organisms incorporate inorganic molecules as a source of chemical energy. The paper then discusses the role of biological organisms in the carbon cycle, including microalgae, plants, and other microorganisms. Following this, the use of photosynthetic and other microorganisms to various industrial applications are covered, including carbon capture and production of useful compounds.

Significance and Scope:

This paper addresses the application of biological carbon capture to climate change, a highly relevant and significant topic. However, its content somewhat diverges from the topics outlined in its abstract, as it primarily discusses natural carbon capture and the biology behind photosynthesis over the state of new biological carbon capture technologies. The paper should somewhat revise its abstract to better reflect its content, or add more content specifically about new biological carbon capture technologies to better align with its abstract and the mission for this journal.

Comprehensiveness and Literature Coverage:

Abstract

“Additionally, we discuss the progress of genetic modification of microorganisms and the development of symbiotic systems to enhance carbon fixation capabilities.”

This paper does not significantly discuss the use of GMO microorganisms in carbon fixation. This language should be amended or a new subsection should be added which discusses this in more depth.

“By integrating genetic engineering technologies, microorganisms can be customized for specific environmental conditions, further enhancing their carbon capture and conversion capacities can be further enhanced (Onyeaka et al., 2023). For phytoplankton (microalgae), the carbon sequestration efficiency is mostly determined by photosynthesis and is also influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, light intensity, and nutrient concentrations (Onyeaka et al., 2023; Salehi-Ashtiani et al., 2021; Saravanan et al., 2021; Hasnain et al., 2023; Yahya et al., 2020).”

This introduction section doesn’t get much attention later in the paper, more content as to how environmental conditions and genetic engineering have been shown to impact carbon sequestration in the literature would be of great value to this paper.

Organization and Clarity:

“Currently, the capacity of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology is 110 million tons per year (Almomani et al., 2023). The main emerging carbon capture technologies can be classified into direct carbon capture, point source carbon capture, pre-combustion capture, biological carbon capture, and ocean capture. Microbial carbon, which capture currently accounts for a relatively small proportion (around 10-30% of the total amount), holds significant potential (Pierre Friedlingstein et al., 2019).”

This language would be much clearer if the mass of carbon capture were put in the context of global annual carbon emissions, and if these sources were broken down as a percentage or by mass. The single statistic given on its own doesn’t offer much without further context.

“In addition, the ocean, the largest active carbon reservoir on Earth, stores approximately 40 trillion tons (Pierre Friedlingstein et al., 2023).”

This statistic would be useful with more context, what percentage of the worlds carbon is stored in the ocean?

“Microbial carbon, which capture currently accounts for a relatively small proportion (around 10-30% of the total amount), holds significant potential (Pierre Friedlingstein et al., 2019).”

What is microbial carbon, is this 30% of all carbon capture or just deliberate carbon capture by human efforts?

“In addition, certain extremophiles, such as halophiles and thermophiles, demonstrate stronger carbon capture abilities”

Stronger in what sense?

“The potential of microbial carbon capture is evident in its ability to directly convert carbon dioxide as well as in its application in resource recovery and recycling (Duarte et al., 2013).”

Is this expressing that the carbon dioxide can be converted into useful products?

“The main site of photosynthesis in terrestrial plants is the leaves, which have stomata.”

It may be worth specifying that stomata are pores in leaves used to regulate gas exchange.

“The carbon storage capacity of the ocean is about 60 times that of the atmosphere, and soil is the largest organic carbon reservoir on Earth (Crowther et al. 2019; DeVries 2022).”

It would be helpful to put all of these on the same sort of measurement, how many tons of carbon are stored in each, or what percentage of total carbon goes into each?

“The global forest area accounts for over 30% of the total land area, reaching 4×103 Mha. The balance of CO2 captured by photosynthesis in forests is 5.17×1010 tCO2 y-1, and the balance of CO2 released through respiration and forest fires is 4.25×1010 tCO2 y-1, with net capture of 9.17×109 tCO2 y-1 (Nunes et al., 2020).”

This feels like a statistic which would benefit from further context, is this a lot of carbon capture relative to total global carbon or man made emissions?

“If these BCEs can be successfully restored, an additional 8.41×108 tCO2 can be reduced annually by 2030 (Macreadie et al., 2021).”

Same comment as directly above

“Seaweeds are one of the main primary photosynthetic organisms and are considered to have the highest productivity among plants in coastal areas, with an average of carbon capture at 5.58×109 tCO2 y-1 over a total area of 3.5 Mkm2 (Zahed et al., 2021).”

Same comment as directly above

“In the future, marine fertilization may be carried out through methods such as “nutrient supply from the land”, and “macronutrient supply from the deep ocean” to cultivate microalgae and macroalgae, promoting their growth and helping to fix more CO2 (Lampitt et al., 2008; Sethi et al., 2020).”

These methods don’t need to be in quotation marks, but should be further explained as to what they are and how they could work.

“Table 1 shows some carbon capture microorganisms.”

Was there any particular reason these specific organisms were selected?

“Among them, bacteria that can synthesize through an autotrophic mode of survival account for a large proportion, such as nitrifying bacteria can obtain energy by oxidizing inorganic nitrogen compounds and reducing CO2 to organic carbon, including ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms (AOMs) and nitrate oxidizing bacteria (NOB)”

Synthesize what?

“If all land were filled with plants, terrestrial ecosystems, and marine ecosystems could sequester a lot of carbon dioxide each year.”

This is a very nonspecific sentence, I would recommend either deleting it or trying to quantify this in some way

Accuracy and Interpretation:

“Microbial carbon, which capture currently accounts for a relatively small proportion (around 10-30% of the total amount), holds significant potential (Pierre Friedlingstein et al., 2019).”

I can’t find references to microbial carbon in this reference, please confirm that this is the intended reference to support this claim.

“Currently, the capacity of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology is 110 million tons per year (Almomani et al., 2023).”

Can you please clarify what you mean by CCUS technology? Is this artificial or natural capture, and confirm that this source supports this claim, as I could not find it in the reference.

“In addition, certain extremophiles, such as halophiles and thermophiles, demonstrate stronger carbon capture abilities.”

A citation would be beneficial here, in addition maybe a few specific organisms with an explanation as to what “stronger” means

“Photosynthesis is divided into two parts: light reaction and dark reaction, and the reaction mechanism of photosynthesis is shown in Figure 2. The light reaction occurs in the thylakoids, where photosystem II (PSII) reduces plastoquinone (PQ) to plastoquinol (PQH2) and electrons under the action of light, releasing oxygen from water. PQH2 and electrons are oxidized to PQ by cytochrome b6f (cytb6f), while cytb6f releases plastocyanin (PC) into the thylakoid lumen. PSII oxidizes PC using proteins such as ferroxin to convert nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP+) to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate hydrogen (NADPH). Subsequently, ATP synthase transfers H+ from the thylakoid lumen to the chloroplast stroma, while converting adenosine diphosphate (ADP) to adenosine triphosphate (ATP) (Prasad et al., 2021; Zeng et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). The dark reaction, also known as the Calvin-Benson cycle, occurs in the chloroplast stroma and consists of three main steps: 1) Conversion of CO2, H2O, and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) in the stroma into 3-phosphoglycerate (3-PGA) under the catalysis of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco); 2) Phosphorylation of 3-PGA by ATP to intermediate 1,3- bisphosphoglycerate under the action of 3-phosphoglycerate kinase, followed by reduction of 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (GAP) by glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase using NADPH; 3) Conversion of a small portion of GAP to carbohydrates such as glucose, while the remaining GAP is used to regenerate RuBP (which requires ATP consumption) (Alami et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2023).”

Description of PSII should go into more depth describing how light enables the reduction

PSI oxidizes PC, not PSII

Lists a compound called ferroxin, I believe should be ferrodoxin

“To combat photorespiration and maintain high levels of biomass productivity, plants and algae have evolved CO2 concentrating mechanisms (CCMs). Some plants, such as corn and sugarcane, fix and store CO2 in the form of malate through the C4 mechanism, then release CO2 from tree-top cells to participate in the Calvin-Benson cycle while generating pyruvate (Ludwig 2012). In other higher plants such as Crassulaceae plants, there is another CCM strategy called CAM (Crassulacean acid metabolism) mechanism, which fixes CO2 into malate through phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), stores it in vacuoles of plant cells at night, and releases it into tissues during the day to participate in photosynthesis (Nobel 1991). In microalgae firstly, CO2 and HCO3- in the environment are transported into the cell through active transport and diffusion. Due to the alkaline environment in the cytoplasm, carbonic anhydrases (CAs) convert CO2 into HCO3-, forming a high-concentration HCO3- pool. Then, HCO3- diffuses into the chloroplast stroma, where it is converted into CO2 by CAs and utilized by dark reactions (Kupriyanova et al., 2023).”

What are “tree-top cells”?

Carbonic anhydrases can catalyze either reaction direction depending on conditions

“In addition, some microorganisms can oxidize inorganic molecules and use the generated chemical energy to fix carbon dioxide into organic matter. Compared to the Calvin-Benson cycle, the carbon sequestration mechanisms of these microorganisms are different, mainly including the reductive TCA cycle, reductive acetyl Co-A pathway, 3-hydroxypropyl pathway, 3-hydroxypropyl/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle, dicarboxylate/4- hydroxybutyrate cycle, and other pathways (Berg 2011; Saini et al., 2011). For the reductive TCA cycle, citrate hydrolyzes to oxaloacetate and acetyl-CoA under ATP citrate lyase action. Oxaloacetate undergoes a series of reduction reactions to decarboxylate into citrate, while acetyl-CoA is converted to pyruvate through pyruvate: ferredoxin oxidoreductase (POR) and then converted back to oxaloacetate via pyruvate carboxylase to participate in subsequent biochemical reactions (Zhang et al., 2021). The reductive acetyl-CoA pathway is linear rather than cyclic and is divided into Western and Eastern branches. In the Western branch, CO2 is reduced to CO under the action of carbon monoxide dehydrogenase (CODH), and in the Eastern (methyl) branch, CO2 is reduced to methyl-CFeSP through a series of reduction reactions. Then, acetyl-CoA is synthesized by reacting with CO from the Western branch using acetyl-CoA synthase (ASC) (Ragsdale 1991). For the 3-hydroxypropyl pathway: Acetyl-CoA is converted into succinyl-CoA through a series of reactions, and then regenerated into acetyl-CoA under the action of enzymes such as succinic dehydrogenase and malyl-CoA lyase (Zhao and Tian 2021). For the 3-hydroxypropionate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle: this cycle can be divided into two parts, the first part transforms acetyl-CoA and two molecules of bicarbonate into succinyl-CoA and the other forms two molecules of acetyl-CoA from succinyl-CoA (L Liu et al., 2021); For dicarboxylate/4- hydroxybutyrate cycle: This mechanism is also divided into two parts, the first part involves the transformation of acetyl-CoA and two inorganic carbon to succinyl-CoA using pyruvate synthase and pyruvate carboxylase, as carboxylation enzyme and the second part involves the regeneration of acetyl-CoA from succinyl-CoA via a route similar to 4hydroxybutyrate pathway (Garritano et al., 2022).”

“citrate hydrolyzes to oxaloacetate,” citrate is cleaved, not hydrolyzed

“Then, acetyl-CoA is synthesized by reacting with CO from the Western branch using acetyl-CoA synthase (ASC)” ACS, rather than ASC

Should be 3-hydroxypropionate pathway throughout

“as carboxylation enzyme and the second part involves the regeneration of acetyl-CoA from succinyl-CoA via a route similar to 4hydroxybutyrate pathway (Garritano et al., 2022).”

Should be “the 4-hydroxybutyrate pathway”

“Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was relatively stable at around 280 ppm. After the Industrial Revolution, with the combustion of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing and has exceeded 400 ppm.”

Both claims need citations

Writing Quality:

This paper should go through a further copy editing pass, as there are a number of minor grammatical errors and somewhat awkwardly worded sentences which have not been addressed in this review.

“In addition, the ocean, the largest active carbon reservoir on Earth, stores approximately 40 trillion tons (Pierre Friedlingstein et al., 2023).”

Specify “tons of dissolved inorganic carbon dioxide”

“Industrial biological carbon capture primarily utilizes bacteria, fungi, microalgae, and other microorganisms for carbon capture.”

Remove “for carbon capture” at end of sentence

“Seaweeds are one of the main primary photosynthetic organisms and are considered to have the highest productivity among plants in coastal areas, with an average of carbon capture at 5.58×109 tCO2 y-1 over a total area of 3.5 Mkm2 (Zahed et al., 2021).”

Seaweed is generally not used in the plural

“It was also reported that building a plant to grow chlorella in the vicinity of a power supply plant could reduce the release of 9.8×108kg of CO2 into the air each year (Oliveira et al., 2020).”

Capitalize Chlorella

Figures and Tables:

Table 1 would benefit from further information if available, potentially including things like ideal use cases, or some metric assessing carbon capture efficiency.

Overall Recommendation:

This is a very well done paper that provides useful information on the carbon cycle, photosynthesis, and organisms which have been used for carbon capture. I recommend this paper for acceptance provided that the revisions proposed be addressed and a further editing pass be made. The primary revision that must be made is that the abstract should be revised to better reflect the content of the paper, or the paper should add substantial content with respect to the state of new carbon capture technologies.

Review: Carbon capture by biological methods — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

In this work, the authors review carbon capture technologies based on biological pathways, focusing on both natural processes involving plants, algae, and microorganisms and biological carbon capture in industries. Overall, the review is informative and relevant to the field. However, I have several comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Figure 3: Some icons are not labeled or explained, making the figure difficult to interpret. For example, it is unclear what “FAME” refers to. Additionally, when discussing potential high-value products, the review would benefit from a more quantitative approach. Including data such as market size or economic value would better highlight the technology’s potential.

Section 4: This section lacks clarity. Subsection 4.1 focuses on the production of fine chemicals through carbon capture, while 4.2 addresses “other biological carbon capture technologies.” I recommend reorganizing the subsections in a more logical and coherent manner. Moreover, the manuscript does not sufficiently discuss biological approaches for converting carbon dioxide into fuels, despite their significant potential. A more thorough examination of this topic is necessary. Including a figure that illustrates some of the processes described in Section 4.2 would also enhance understanding.

Conclusions and Perspectives: This section should be expanded. The authors should discuss key technical challenges in greater detail and suggest possible solutions or future research directions.

Language and Consistency: The manuscript requires significant language improvement. Below are some examples, but I strongly recommend a thorough review of the entire text for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

• Abstract: The phrase “typical carbon capture methods, including geological and oceanic carbon storage” should be reworded to clearly distinguish between carbon capture and carbon storage methods.

• Page 3: The sentence “Microbial carbon, which capture currently accounts…” should be corrected to “Microbial carbon capture, which currently accounts…”

• The terms “CO₂” and “carbon dioxide” are used inconsistently. Please choose one and use it consistently throughout the manuscript.

• Page 14: The sentence “Specifically, based on economic constraints and feasibility analyses, must consider the cost of microalgal bioreactors and the required footprint” is grammatically incorrect and should be rephrased for clarity.

Recommendation: Carbon capture by biological methods — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Carbon capture by biological methods — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Carbon capture by biological methods — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Carbon capture by biological methods — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Carbon capture by biological methods — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.