
Citation: Eric Ariel L. Salas, Sakthi Kumaran Subburayalu. Implications of climate change on nutrient pollution: a look into the nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in the Great Miami and Little Miami watersheds in Ohio[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2019, 6(3): 186-221. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.3.186
[1] | Rim BOUKHCHINA, Mohamed HAMDI, Souheil EL ALIMI . Power-to-hydrogen: A review of applications, market development, and policy landscape. AIMS Energy, 2025, 13(3): 696-731. doi: 10.3934/energy.2025025 |
[2] | Daido Fujita, Takahiko Miyazaki . Techno-economic analysis on the balance of plant (BOP) equipment due to switching fuel from natural gas to hydrogen in gas turbine power plants. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(2): 464-480. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024021 |
[3] | Antzela Fivga, Lais Galileu Speranza, Carolina Musse Branco, Miloud Ouadi, Andreas Hornung . A review on the current state of the art for the production of advanced liquid biofuels. AIMS Energy, 2019, 7(1): 46-76. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.1.46 |
[4] | Edith Martinez-Guerra, Veera Gnaneswar Gude . Energy aspects of microalgal biodiesel production. AIMS Energy, 2016, 4(2): 347-362. doi: 10.3934/energy.2016.2.347 |
[5] | Gbadebo Oladosu . An economic evaluation of alternative biofuel deployment scenarios in the USA. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(3): 374-396. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.3.374 |
[6] | Michael E. Salassi, Lawrence L. Falconer, Tyler B. Mark, Michael A. Deliberto, Brian M. Hilbun, Todd L. Cooper . Economic Potential for Energy Cane Production as a Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstock in the Southeastern United States. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(1): 25-40. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.1.25 |
[7] | Pallav Purohit, Subash Dhar . Lignocellulosic biofuels in India: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(3): 453-486. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.3.453 |
[8] | Patrick Moriarty, Damon Honnery . The limits of renewable energy. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(4): 812-829. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021037 |
[9] | Yadessa Gonfa Keneni, Jorge Mario Marchetti . Oil extraction from plant seeds for biodiesel production. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(2): 316-340. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.2.316 |
[10] | Muhammad Amir Raza, M. M. Aman, Abdul Ghani Abro, Muhammad Shahid, Darakhshan Ara, Tufail Ahmed Waseer, Mohsin Ali Tunio, Shakir Ali Soomro, Nadeem Ahmed Tunio, Raza Haider . Modelling and development of sustainable energy systems. AIMS Energy, 2023, 11(2): 256-270. doi: 10.3934/energy.2023014 |
Population growth and changing lifestyle with industrialization and urbanization are the added sinks for soaring energy demand. Present energy security is predominantly drifting around the fossil resources and alternative fuels are being searched [1]. However, the faster depletion of fossil resources and accelerated accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the environment that already has exceeded the "dangerously high" threshold of 450 ppm CO2, stressing the fossil fuel to be an unsustainable source of energy. The conventional fossil-based fuels contributed major share in the global primary energy consumption [2]. Global dependence on fossil fuels has led to the release of over 1,100 GtCO2 into the atmosphere since the mid-nineteenth century. Currently, energy related GHG emissions, mainly from fossil fuel combustion for heat supply, electricity generation and transport, account for around 70% of total emissions including carbon dioxide, methane and some traces of nitrous oxide [3].
The concerns related to energy security, environmental safety and sustainability have encouraged researchers towards alternative, renewable, sustainable, efficient and cost effective energy sources with lesser emissions [4]. Renewable energy can play a decisive role at global and national levels in dealing with the concerns related to energy security, climate change, eco-friendliness and sustainability [5,6,7,8,9]. With the situation of increasing energy demand, its prices and implementation of policies for global warming reduction, the sources of renewable energy have popularized [10,11]. Renewable energy is not only providing the sustainable energy, but also considered as a tool to solve several other problems associated with the fossil energy, viz., improving the energy security, resolving the health and environmental anxiety, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing poverty by increasing employment [2].
The increasing demand for biofuels has encouraged researchers and policy makers to find sustainable biofuel production systems in accordance with regional conditions and needs. The sustainability of a biofuel production system must include energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) saving along with environmental and social acceptability [12].
The studies reviewed in various publications are mainly focused on very specific aspects of bio-hydrogen production such as reactor design, molecular tools, production pathway, etc., however, this article exclusively reviews the biological production of hydrogen and its sustainability as an economical clean fuel in present scenario and also discusses its future perspective.
There are some recent publications on types of biofuels and their production from different substrates [13] and waste bioresources [10,14]. Biofuels can broadly be categorised into two groups:
Primary biofuel: In this category, all those biomass materials can be included which were traditionally used i.e. firewood, wood chips, pellets, animal waste, forest, crop residue, landfill gas etc.
Secondary biofuel: In this category, all other products and processes, which use biomass and provide fuel in the form of liquid, solid or gas. On the basis of substrate utilization, this group can further be divided into three categories viz. 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuel (Figure 1).
Though, research on the biohydrogen production is not new and basic photolytic hydrogen production during photosynthesis was explained long back, currently a possibility for industrial production of hydrogen from biological sources provides a boost in the field. After the possibility of hydrogen usage as transportation fuel, the research in this field has fuelled up and a tremendous improvement is seen since 2003. Published databases showed as much as 146 journals are publishing research results on biohydrogen. Among them, some are completely devoted towards the bioenergy i.e. International Journal of Hydrogen, Energy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Biohydrogen research are being conducted by more than 100 nations and around 7834 papers have been published since 1984 (Figure 2). Major contribution on this research have come from China followed by USA. India hold third position on this research (Figure 3) [2]. Most of the publications on biohydrogen are research articles (73%) followed by conference papers (11%) and Review articles (10%) (SCOPUS, 2016).
Present hydrogen production system (Figure 4) is mainly based on electrolysis of water, and thermocatalytic reformation of hydrogen rich compounds, but these processes are energy intensive. Biological hydrogen production can solve this problem by utilizing biomass and microorganisms. Biohydrogen can be produced in two broad ways: By photosynthesis using microalgae, and by fermentation [15,16,17,18,19]. The organism involved and maximum H2 yield in different process are summarized in Table 1, and the pros and cons of different process are summarized in Table 2.
Production-Process | Maximum production rate (mmol H2/L h−1) | Employed Microorganism |
Direct Bio-photolysis | 0.07 | Chlamydomonas reinhardtii |
Indirect Bio-photolysis | 0.36 | Anabaena variabilis |
Photo-Fermentation | 0.16 | Rhodobacter spheroides |
Dark-Fermentation | 64.5–75.6 | Enterobacter cloacae DM 11, Clostridium sp. strain No. 2 |
Two-stage fermentation (Dark fermentation + Photolysis) | 47.9–51.2 51.20 | Enterobacter cloacae DM 11 + Rhodobacter Sphaeroides OU 001 Mixed microbial flora + Rhodobacter sphaeroides OU 001 |
Production-Process | Advantages in Process used | Disadvantages in Process used |
Direct Bio-photolysis | 1. water and sunlight produce hydrogen 2. Ten-fold conversion of Solar energy than in crops and trees |
1. Requirement of High light intensity 2. Oxygen can be hazardous for the system |
Indirect Bio-photolysis | 1. Produces hydrogen from water 2. Ability to fix nitrogen from atmosphere |
1. Removal of hydrogenase enzymes to avoid degradation of hydrogen 2. Lower photochemical efficiency 3. Oxygen presence at 30% 4. Presence of oxygen is inhibitory for enzyme nitrogenase |
Dark-Fermentation | 1. A range of feedstock can be used 2. Hydrogen production in dark 3. Metabolites can be used as added-value products |
1. Gas mixture requires cleaning from the presence of CO2 2. Yields of hydrogen is low |
Photo-Fermentation | 1. Wide-spectrum light energy is used 2. A range of feedstock can be used |
1. Light conversion efficiency is low 2. Presence of oxygen is inhibitory for enzyme hydrogenase |
Photosynthetic biohydrogen is either direct photolysis of water or indirect photolysis using sunlight. Unfortunately, H2 released by microorganisms during the photosynthetic process are in low yields. The increased order-of-magnitude of its volumetric productivity will be required before becoming reasonable for industrial-scale production. Further, the oxygen sensitivity of hydrogenase restricts the process in natural conditions. The Present photosynthetic biohydrogen production research is directed towards the enhancement of hydrogenase activity by identifying new organisms or using engineered organisms. Since the Rhodospirillum rubrum was found to produce H2 photosynthetically using organic acids as a carbon source and amino acid as a nitrogen source [22], many photosynthetic bacteria have been reported with hydrogen production efficiency under appropriate conditions [23,24,25,26]. Hwang et al. [27] reported enzymatic hydrogen production of Chlorella vulgaris YSL01 and YSL16 using CO2 as a carbon source under atmospheric conditions. Cyanothece sp. strain ATCC 51142 is capable of performing simultaneous oxygenic photosynthesis and H2 production by dinitrogenase NifHDK, an enzyme complex [28]. Bayro-Kaiser, V. and Nelson [29] randomly mutagenized the green microalgae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to generate mutants that exhibited temperature-sensitive photoautotrophic growth. Eilenberg et al. [30] engineered the HydA enzyme and reported that the in vivo photosynthetic activity of the Fd-HydA enzyme surpasses that of the native HydA and shows higher oxygen tolerance. Recently, Batyrova and Hallenbeck reported another genetically modified Chlamydomonas reinhardtii strain cy6Nac2.49, which activates photosynthesis in a cyclical manner, so that photosynthesis will not be active in the presence of oxygen, but only in response to a metabolic trigger i.e. anaerobiosis [31]. Krassen et al. showed the stepwise assembly of a hybrid complex consisting of photosystem I and [NiFe] hydrogenase on a solid gold surface which can give rise to light-induced H2 evolution which converted solar energy to hydrogen energy [32].
Present fermentative biohydrogen production research are concentrating on feedstock selection and process optimization. Azman et al. [33] used de-oiled rice bran, obtained after the extraction of oil content of rice bran, for dark fermentative biohydrogen production. Oil-extracted rice bran was hydrolyzed by dilute H2SO4 (1%, v/v) to obtain de-oiled rice bran hydrolyzate as a substrate for hydrogen generation. A recent comprehensive literature survey, on efficient biohydrogen generation and long-term operation in microbial fuel cell (MFC), concluded that to obtain high process efficiencies, cell design ought to be of primary concern [34]. Stanislaus et al. [35] used Ipomoea aquatica as a substrate with digested sludge as inoculum for biohydrogen production. Process optimization in this experiment through response surface methodology indicated 90 ℃ temperature for 60 min as the optimum pre-treatment condition of inoculum. Also, frozen dry I. aquatic demonstrated the highest hydrogen yield among all the other substrate pre-treatment conditions along with positive energy production. Kirili and Kapdan [36] applied a novel technique for biohydrogen production process enhancement, by adding microbial support particles namely; plastic scouring sponge pad, plastic nylon sponge, black porous sponge, plastic scouring sponge pad with metal mesh, and plastic nylon sponge with metal mesh, using waste wheat as feedstock. The experiment resulted into increased yield with decreasing retention time from 5 days to 1 day for all particles and achieved maximum yield with metal mesh covered plastic scouring sponge pad at 1 day retention time in repeated batch operation. Sarkar and Venkata Mohan [37] also concluded that application of pre-treated inoculum as biocatalyst and high substrate concentration resulted in substantial enhancement of both hydrogen and volatile fatty acid production. Radha and Murugesan [38] suggested that pre-treatment of marine microalgae is effective in removing phenolic content and enhancing biohydrogen production.
Bharathiraja et al. [39] reviewed the variable feedstock resources and process enhancement criterion for dark fermentative biohydrogen production. Sivagurunatahn and Lin [40] conducted a process optimization experiment using beverage wastewater as a feedstock with enriched mixed microflora dominated by Clostridium sp. in a continuously-stirred tank reactor (CSTR) under mesophilic conditions. The results revealed that a peak hydrogen production rate was observed at HRT 1.5 h while, maximum hydrogen yield was achieved at HRT 6 h. Another experiment with psychrophilic G088 strain (EU636029), closely related to Polaromonas rhizosphaerae (EF127651) was evaluated for its hydrogen production efficiency using different carbon sources, such as xylose, glucose, fructose, galactose, lactose or sucrose [41]. Experiment results showed glucose as the substrate with the highest consumption rate, accompanied by the maximum values of biohydrogen production rate and yield. Wen et al. [42] achieved stable and efficient photo-fermentative hydrogen production by forming biofilm on the surface of carrier in the biofilm reactor.
Dark fermentation process is considered to be promising and favourable over the photo fermentation process. Although, selection of one process over the other depends on several factors, such as availability of feedstock, selection of process organism, process condition for consortium, compatibility of feedstock with applied microorganism etc. Some workers also used the hybrid reactor to combine photo and dark fermentation processes. A combined process showed a positive result and an increase in total hydrogen yield. Several other researchers with variable feedstock and optimised process conditions also reported potential of industrial hydrogen production [43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. However, most of these results are limited to laboratory scales, none of them reached to the industrial production and failed to contribute in the hydrogen economy.
Among the four strategically important alternative fuel sources viz. biofuels, hydrogen (H2), natural gas and syngas (synthesis gas), hydrogen emerges as superior, since it is renewable, does not emit the greenhouse gases, liberates large amount of energy per unit weight in combustion and can be easily converted into electricity by fuel cell. Biological H2 production delivers clean H2 in a sustainable manner with simple technology and more attractive potential than the current chemical production of H2. Biohydrogen holds the potential for a substantial contribution to the future renewable energy demands. Biohydrogen production delivers clean H2 in a sustainable manner using simple technology and has more attractive potential than the current chemical production of H2, since it is suited for the conversion of a wide spectrum of substrate utilization such as organic wastes, industrial manufacturing process by-products and biomass as feedstock, mostly available free or at a low cost [50]. The sustainability of all products depends mainly on its impact on society, economy and environment. Figure 5 summarizes the social, economic and environmental benefits of biohydrogen.
The main limitation of biological hydrogen production is lower rate and yields as compared to the other hydrogen production methods. Therefore, there is a necessity to develop strategies to increase the yield and production rate of biohydrogen. The main obstacles to achieve high rates and yields include, partial pressure of hydrogen gas in the produced gas mixture, competing reactions, bioprocess technology, insufficient active hydrogenase enzyme, and efficient hydrogen-producing cultures [51,52]. Hallenbeck [51] suggested that partial pressure of hydrogen can be reduced by sparging inert gas to derive electrons form NADH, while there is a need to develop a cost-effective and technologically sound method for the same [52].
The metabolic shift from acetic acid generation to solvent or hydrogen-consuming organic acid generation, and consumption of hydrogen by uptake of hydrogenase and homoacetogens, reduces biohydrogen production [51,53]. The metabolic shift can be controlled by using a bioreactor, which has been reviewed in detail by Argun et al. [52]. The purity of hydrogen in gas phase is also a challenge, as it varies from 30–60%. The separation of hydrogen by using selective membranes in the production process could help in reducing hydrogen partial pressure and increasing purity of hydrogen [52,54].
The sustainability of biohydrogen production is driven by production rate and its purity, to get biohydrogen at an affordable cost. Physicochemical methods are highly efficient in both productivity and purity of hydrogen but they are not cost-effective due to high energy demands during the production. However, the use of biological methods for hydrogen production have acquired significant attention in the last decades as they operate in mild conditions and have lower energy demands, which make the process cost-effective. There are some other factors seeking the attentions of researchers and industrialists for biohydrogen production, such as utilization of organic residues; but it involved high technologies to operate safely and to convert it into biohydrogen in an environmentally-acceptable form [52].
The criteria for sustainability assessment concerns three aspects, including economics, environmental performance and social issues. Sustainability usually refers to simultaneously achieving economic prosperity, environmental cleanness and social parity [55]. Several investigations have been conducted to improve the biological hydrogen production and develop a biohydrogen economy. However, development of biofuel industries is recognized as a complex system and besides experimental studies, social, economical and environmental aspects of biofuel system in a country or region should be considered. Aspects are estimated by feasibility assessments, evaluation of biofuels sustainability, and life-cycle and techno-economic analysis [56]. The energy ratio and GHG emissions of biohydrogen compared favourably with diesel and other H2 production pathways. The energy ratio (may be called as Net Energy Ratio or Energy Balance) of biohydrogen production pathways must be positive for sustainable replacement of fossil sources. Consequently, biohydrogen is worthy of consideration in the planning and development of a H2 economy, both from an energy and from an environmental perspective [57].
A detailed financial feasibility analysis by Lee [58], indicated that an attractive investment proposal or business plan, is critical in attracting investment for long-term biohydrogen production on a small or commercial scale. His results explained that the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of biohydrogen will be approximately USD 2 to 3 kg. All financial indices revealed that biohydrogen is economically feasible of investment and will be commercialized successfully before the timelines in many official reports. Results revealed decision-making criteria should include the economic incentives. LCOE of biohydrogen is less sensitive to the cost of biomass feedstock, which is more sensitive to the capital cost, operating and maintenance cost. Another study by Lee [59] reported that the biohydrogen and biobutanol can replace fossil fuels with high economic feasibility. Biohydrogen has the most flexibility under variation in the production cost of biomass feedstock. Algae biodiesel is less financially competitive than biohydrogen and biobutanol.
Three sources of bioenergy are cost-competitive with fossil fuels under ideal conditions. Lee and Chiu [60] investigated the development of the biohydrogen sector in four countries, US, Japan, China and India. His study stated China as the largest biohydrogen market with the highest total output multiplier by 2050, followed by the US, Japan and India (in that order). High investment will encourage the rapid development of the biohydrogen industry in all four countries. Therefore, investing US$1 in the biohydrogen industry will generate a total output of US$3.22, 3.50, 3.09 and 3.00 in the four economies, respectively, in 2011–2050. Study also revealed that investing in the development of biohydrogen technology will provide more benefits than investing in hydrogen infrastructure. Han et al. [61] conducted a techno-economic analysis for fermentative hydrogen production from food waste. Study exhibited 26.75% return on investment (ROI) and 24.07% internal rate of return (IRR) within 5 years of payback period (PBP).
However, societal impact of biohydrogen production and its use were less quantified due to complexity in societal structure, a few reports suggested an edge of biohydrogen on other fuels. Ren et al. [55] described ten societal criteria to assess the societal aspect in a sustainability study. The criterion were: Inherent safety index, occupational index, social attractiveness, human health and safety of employees, per capita GDP contribution, taxes contribution, cultural influence, political acceptability, security of primary supply and contribution for energy sufficiency. Sun et al. [62] quantified potential societal benefits of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) using the societal lifetime cost (SLC). The study included the vehicle retail cost (a function of vehicle performance), the cost of energy use (a function of vehicle fuel economy), operating and maintenance costs, externality costs of oil-use, damage costs of noise and emissions from air pollutants and GHGs, and other factors. Results of the study showed the cost difference between FCVs and gasoline vehicles is initially very large. FCVs eventually become lifetime cost competitive with gasoline vehicles, as their production volume increases, even without accounting for externalities. High valuation of externalities and high oil price could reduce the buy-down cost (the cumulative investment needed to bring hydrogen FCVs to lifetime cost parity with gasoline vehicles by $10 billion relative to the reference case. According to Ogden et al. [63] "the hydrogen fuel cell car stands out as having the lowest externality costs of any option, and when mass produced with high valuations of externalities, the least projected lifecycle cost". These costs are estimated over the full fuel-cycle from "well-to-wheels" and the entire vehicle lifetime and include adjustments for non-cost social transfers, such as taxes and fees, and producer overhead costs associated with fuel and vehicles [62].
In a study Stanislaus et al. [35] has studied the production of biohydrogen from Ipomoea aquatica using digested sludge as inoculum and reported that the energy consumed in the fermentation process was lesser than energy produced in the process, which shows a positive energy balance or NER. The biohydrogen system succeeds in obtaining a negative global warming impact with a low cumulative non-renewable energy demand. This indicates that biohydrogen can be produced with positive NER, which could be a sustainable approach. Sekoai and Daramola [64] and Singh et al. [65] reviewed the published reports and concluded hydrogen as the safest fuel due to its non-toxicity, dispersive in nature, and with the least dangers in terms of a fire hazard. Although, it can cause fire but the clear flame cannot perch skin at a distance because of the little thermal radiation emitted by the flame due its lack of soot content.
Romangnoli et al. [66] conducted an LCA study of biohydrogen by photosynthesis and the results of the analysis, showed that using biohydrogen to produce electricity offers more environmental benefits than using a fossil fuel based source. Wulf and Kaltschmitt [67] estimated that total 29.9 Mio t CO2-eq could be reduced by using compact class hydrogen fuel cell vehicle over compact class gasoline vehicle over the 15 years life time. The life cycle study of Djomo and Blumberga [57] compared the energetic and environmental performances of hydrogen from wheat straw (WS-H2), sweet sorghum stalk (SSS-H2) and steam potato peels (SPP-H2), and found comparable energy ratios (ER) among the three raw materials used i.e. 1.08 for WS-H2, 1.14 for SSS-H2 and 1.17 for SPP-H2; and a GHG savings by 52–56% compared to diesel and by 54–57% compared to steam methane reforming production of H2.
Dadak et al. [68] carried out an exergy analysis and concluded that the eco-exergy concept could provide unique insights beyond those of conventional exergy analysis, which thereby provides a useful design tool for photobiological hydrogen production. The researchers further added that the sodium acetate concentration of 1 g L−1 and light intensity of 1000 lux were found to be the most suitable conditions for biohydrogen production, according to the normalized exergy destruction obtained using both concepts. In another exergy analysis, no noticeable changes were observed in the conventional exergetic and eco-exergetic performance parameters of the bioreactor over 540 h of continuous operation. Nevertheless, eco-exergetic analysis owing to the inclusion of the work of information embedded in the genomes of living organisms is still recommended for improving the design features of photobioreactors for hydrogen production [68]. In a study with Rhodopseudomonas palustris PT, Hosseini et al. [69] provided a comprehensive insight into the exergetic parameters of a bioreactor for hydrogen production using a locally isolated light-dependent photosynthetic bacterium to select the best carbon source dosage for efficient and eco-friendly biohydrogen production. According to the experiment normalized exergy destruction and sustainability index, 1.5 g/L sodium acetate dosage was found to be an optimal carbon source for the industrial applications phase.
Wulf et al. [70] has performed a life cycle assessment of different biohydrogen production processes to examine environmental impact, such as anthropogenic climate change, acidification, eutrophication and human toxicity. They considered biohydrogen production from biomass sources derived from forestry and short rotation coppice (SRC), herbaceous biomass, energy crops and biowaste in Germany. They reported that biomass source has significant influence on the environmental impact of biohydrogen production pathways, and concluded that the gasification and the reforming of biomass have the potential to be climate friendly. They also reported that steam methane reforming (SMR) technology is the most promising technology regarding the environmental impact [70].
Though the biohydrogen production and its utilization seems to be an environmentally safe and feasible alternative for fossil based fuel however, shifting from present fuel economy to biohydrogen economy is still in its infancy stage. Despite being several research groups working on it, its industrial production, storage and transportation have not yet reached on a satisfactory level. The major constraints in biological hydrogen production processes are raw material cost, low hydrogen evolution rate and yield at large scale [71].
Dadak et al. [68] suggested eco-exergy concept as an effective tool to assess the sustainability and productivity of biohydrogen production from a thermodynamic point of view. Bretner et al. [72] and Miandad et al. [20] summarised the technological challenges for sustainable use of biohydrogen fuel. Briefly these challenges are:
1. Low Photochemical efficiency.
2. Efficiency of employed bacterial strain.
3. Instability of hydrogenase over-expression.
4. Sensitivity of hydrogenase to oxygen and feedback inhibition.
5. Competition for reductant from ferredoxin between hydrogenases and other cellular functions.
6. Suitability of low cost substrates.
7. Industrially feasible production process and yield. Substrate use competence of used strain.
8. Kinetics suitable design of reactors.
9. Thermodynamic barrier.
10. Low cost material for hydrogen storage for economic feasibility.
Biohydrogen production provides clean H2 with the help of simple technology and a more attractive potential than the current chemical production of H2, makes it sustainable. Although, present hydrogen production industries are based on chemical processing units, but the research trend on biohydrogen production promises a booming potential of industrial biohydrogen production in the near future. Global utilization of confined and trader hydrogen is projected to increase more than 300 billion cubic through 2018 with an annual growth rate of 3.5%. Recent global research trends showed that the world's largest hydrogen consumption will continue with US having the maximum share of growth, although in 2018 it is likely to occur in China.
Biohydrogen production from the Asian countries is mainly focusing on dark fermentation while the European countries are focusing on dark and photo fermentation. So far, the current biohydrogen production system is appropriate for decentralized small scale systems, integrated with waste from agriculture and industries or from waste processing facilities, using reactors operating with mixed microflora (aerobic, anaerobic, thermophillic, photo non-sulphur producing bacteria) or pure cultures enriched from natural sources. Seed inocula for biohydrogen production have been obtained from heat sludge, compost, waste water, and food waste etc.
Production of hydrogen using biological tool is the predominant challenge for biotechnology, concerning present and future environmental problems. Future of biological hydrogen production is not only determined by research advances, including genetic engineering of microorganisms for efficiency improvement and designing complications of bioreactor, but also by fuel economics (cost of fuel), societal adaptation and the development of systems for hydrogen energy [73]. Current strategies geared towards improving biohydrogen production include microbial culture immobilisation, bioreactor modifications, the optimisation of process conditions (temperature, pH, OLR and HRT), culture selection and enrichments, substrate choice and the metabolic engineering of biohydrogen specialists [74,75,76,77].
Cost factor is an important aspect for sustainability of fuel. Metabolic and genetic engineering can play a vital role in bringing down the production cost and increasing the H2 yield. By an estimate 80 kg of hydrogen per acre per day could be produced by diverting the entire photosynthetic efficiency of the algae toward hydrogen production. In a realistic efficiency of 50%, hydrogen production cost comes close to a $2.80 a kilogram [78]. However, in the current scenario below, 10% of the algae's photosynthetic capacity was utilized for biohydrogen production [79,80]. Research on biotechnological approach to improve algal photosynthetic biohydrogen production are underway and demonstrating a promising result [81]. There are two major factors that would have an important impact on the cost of biohydrogen production for commercial use: The cost of the photo-bioreactor and storage system has to be brought down, which will depend on appropriate and less expensive materials to be used in the fabrication of the photo-bioreactors.
The reports published by several researchers have clearly indicated that the cost-effective production of biohydrogen with a positive energy balance is the key feature to get sustainable biohydrogen production, as summarised in Table 3.
S. No. | Methodology | Social Sustainability | Economical Sustainability | Environmental Sustainability | Reference |
1. | Exergy Model | Higher eco-exergy | [68] | ||
2. | Exergy Model | High | 1.5 g/L sodium acetate was an optimal carbon source for higher exergy | [69] | |
3. | Input-output (IO) Model | Investing US$1will generate US$3.22 to 3.50 | [60] | ||
4. | Societal lifetime cost (SLC) | Positive lifetime cost in long term | [62] | ||
5. | Societal lifetime cost | lowest externality costs of fuel cell vehicle | [63] | ||
6. | Financial feasibility analysis | Low levelized cost of energy | [58] | ||
7. | Financial feasibility analysis | High economic feasibility | [59] | ||
8. | Life cycle assessment (LCA) | CO 2 saving | [67] | ||
9. | Life cycle assessment | Environmental Benefit | [66] | ||
10. | Life cycle assessment | Positive energy balance | Reduction of GHG emission | [57] | |
11. | Life cycle assessment | GHG Saving | [57] | ||
12. | Techno-economic analysis | 26.75% return on investment and 24.07% rate of return in 5 year payback period. | [61] | ||
13. | Literature review | Safest fuel in term of toxicity and fire hazard | Zero emission fuel with consequential local air quality benefits | [65] | |
14. | Comparative LCA | Positive energy balance of biohydrogen than non-renewable hydrogen | Better performance of biohydrogen in term of abiotic depletion impact potential, cumulative non-renewable energy demand, and ozone layer depletion impact potential | [82] | |
15. | LCA survey | Biohydrogen in MECs provide environmental protection | [34] | ||
16. | Process optimization through response surface methodology | Positive energy yield | Water purification and clean energy | [35] |
After reviewing all information this can be emphasized that the sustainable biohydrogen production can be generated in the future by exploration of the following technologies:
a. Utilization of molecular tools for identification of robust hydrogen producing micro-organisms.
b. Advancement in the bioreactor development.
c. Fine tuning of pre-treatment techniques.
d. Integration of other energy generation systems such as biogas, bioethanol, etc.
The studies reviewed in various publications are mainly focused on very specific aspects of bio-hydrogen production, such as biomass gasification [82], reactor design [83], molecular tools [84], and production pathway [85], etc. However, this article has exclusively reviewed the biological production of hydrogen and its sustainability as an economical clean fuel currently and has also discussed its future perspective.
This review with the following points concludes that biohydrogen is a renewable and sustainable source of energy and a clean economical fuel in comparison to other biofuels [86] for the near future:
● Various types of biomass can be used for sustainable biohydrogen production.
● The selection of pre-treatment technology for biohydrogen production process depends on substrate composition.
● The simultaneous use of more than one pre-treatment technology can lead to improvements in substrate-biodegradability along with increase in hydrogen production.
● Development of biohydrogen economy is a feasible alternative for sustainable fuel as it provides energy security, societal parity and environmental safety.
● Hybrid or biorefinery concept can lead to commercialization of biohydrogen production.
● Metabolic and genetic engineering can play a vital role in bringing down the production cost and increasing the yield of biohydrogen.
The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | Ohio Department of Development (ODD) Population and Housing: Ohio's population; Ohio Development Services Agency, 2010. Available from: https://development.ohio.gov/reports/reports_pop_proj_map.htm. |
[2] |
Tong STY, Sun Y, Ranatunga T, et al. (2012) Predicting plausible impacts of sets of climate and land use change scenarios on water resources. Appl Geogr 32: 477–489. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.014
![]() |
[3] | Debrewer LM, Rowe GL, Reutter DC, et al. Environmental setting and effects on water quality in the Great and Little Miami River basins, Ohio and Indiana: Water-Resources Investigations Report, 2000. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1999/4201/report.pdf. |
[4] | OEPA biological and water quality study of the Upper Little Miami River. Clark, Clinton, Greene, Madison, Montgomery, and Warren Counties, Ohio. OHIO EPA Technical Report: Division of Surface Water, 2011. Available from: https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/LMR_Upper_Basin_2011_TSD.pdf. |
[5] | Pitt R, Bozeman M. Water quality and biological effects of urban runoff in Coyote Creek, U.S. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30000C3M.TXT. |
[6] |
Tong STY (1990) The hydrologic effects of urban land use: A case study of the little Miami River Basin. Landsc and Urban Plan 19: 99–105. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(90)90037-3
![]() |
[7] |
Turner RE, Rabalais NN (2004) Suspended sediment, C, N, P, and Si yields from the Mississippi River Basin. Hydrobiologia 511: 79–89. doi: 10.1023/B:HYDR.0000014031.12067.1a
![]() |
[8] | Rowe GL, Reutter DC, Runkle DL, et al. Water quality in the Great and Little Miami River Basins, Ohio and Indiana, 1999–2001, USGS, 2004. Available from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1229. |
[9] |
Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Band LE, et al. (2008) Interaction between urbanization and climate variability amplifies watershed nitrate export in Maryland. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5872–5878. doi: 10.1021/es800264f
![]() |
[10] | OEPA Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio's Major Rivers, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water Modeling, Assessment and TMDL Section, 2016. Available from: https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/Nutrient%20Mass%20Balance%20Study%202018_F inal.pdf. |
[11] |
Yu S, Yu GB, Liu Y, et al. (2012) Urbanization impairs surface water quality: Eutrophication and metal stress in the Grand Canal of China. River Res Appl 28: 1135–1148. doi: 10.1002/rra.1501
![]() |
[12] | EPA National Nonpoint Source Program-a catalyst for water quality improvements, 2017. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/nps_program_highlights_report-508.pdf. |
[13] | MCD Lower Great Miami River Nutrient Management Project, 2017. Available from: https://www.mcdwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-LGMR_Report-FINAL_02-28-17_Compressed_Graphics.pdf. |
[14] |
Naramngam S, Tong STY (2013) Environmental and economic implications of various conservative agricultural practices in the Upper Little Miami River basin. Agric Water Manag 119: 65–79. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.12.008
![]() |
[15] |
Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32: 333–365. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114040
![]() |
[16] | Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic ecosystems, Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. Center for Watershed Protection, 2003. Available from: https://clear.uconn.edu/projects/TMDL/library/papers/Schueler_2003.pdf. |
[17] | OEPA Ohio Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Available from: https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/wqs/ONRS_final_jun13.pdf. |
[18] |
Townsend AR, Howarth RW, Bazzaz FA, et al. (2003) Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Front Ecol Environ 1: 240–246. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0240:HHEOAC]2.0.CO;2
![]() |
[19] | Newcomber G, House J, Ho L, et al. Management strategies for cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and their toxins: A guide for water utilities. Water Quality Research Australia Limited, 2009. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lionel_Ho/publication/242740698_Management_Strategie s_for_Cyanobacteria_Blue-Green_Algae_A_Guide_for_Water_Utilities/links/02e7e52d62273e8f70000000/Management-Strategies-for-Cyanobacteria-Blue-Green-Algae-A-Guide-for-Water-Utilities.pdf. |
[20] |
Graham J, Loftin K, Meyer M, et al. (2010) Cyanotoxin mixtures and taste-and-odor compounds in cyanobacterial blooms from the Midwestern United States. Environ Sc. Technol 44: 7361–7368. doi: 10.1021/es1008938
![]() |
[21] | MCD nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loads in the Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio 2005 – 2011, 2012. Available from: https://www.mcdwater.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/2012NutrientMonitoringReport_Final.pdf. |
[22] | OEPA biological and water quality study of the Middle and Lower Great Miami River and selected tributaries, 1995-Volume I, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Available from: https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/lmgmr95.pdf. |
[23] | Smith JH. Miami River algae draws local attention, 2011. Available from: https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/miami-river-algae-draws-local- attention/Rh715SpRPOMoJsF6qMyghK. |
[24] | NPS Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Available from: https://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/nps/nps_mgmt_plan.pdf. |
[25] | OEPA Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Available from: https://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/2018intreport/2018IR_Final.pdf. |
[26] | Takle ES, Xia M, Guan F, et al. (2006) Upper Mississippi River basin modeling system part 4: climate change impacts on flow and water quality, In: Coastal Hydrology and Processes, Water Resources Publications, 135–142. |
[27] | Luo Y, Ficklin DL, Liu X, et al. (2013) Assessment of climate change impacts on hydrology and water quality with a watershed modeling approach. Sci Total Environ 450–451: 72–82. |
[28] |
Ekness P, Randhir TO (2015) Effect of climate and land cover changes on watershed runoff: A multivariate assessment for storm water management. J Geophys Res-Geosciences 120: 1785–1796. doi: 10.1002/2015JG002981
![]() |
[29] |
Rahman K, da Silva AG, Tejeda EM (2015) An independent and combined effect analysis of land use and climate change in the upper Rhone River watershed, Switzerland. Appl Geogr 63: 264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.021
![]() |
[30] |
Li Z, Fang H (2017) Modeling the impact of climate change on watershed discharge and sediment yield in the black soil region, northeastern China. Geomorphology 293: 255–271. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.06.005
![]() |
[31] |
Barnett TP, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438: 303–309. doi: 10.1038/nature04141
![]() |
[32] |
Wang GQ, Zhang JY, Xuan YQ (2013) Simulating the Impact of Climate Change on Runoff in a Typical River Catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. J Hydrometeor 14: 1553–1561. doi: 10.1175/JHM-D-12-081.1
![]() |
[33] |
Barranco LM, Álvarez-Rodríguez J, Olivera F (2014) Assessment of the expected runoff change in Spain using climate simulations. J Hydrol Eng 19: 1481–1490. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000920
![]() |
[34] |
Demaria EMC, Roundy JK, Wi S (2016) The effects of climate change on seasonal snowpack and the hydrology of the Northeastern and Upper Midwest United States. J Climate 29: 6527–6541. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0632.1
![]() |
[35] | Wagena MB, Collick AS, Ross AC (2018) Impact of climate change and climate anomalies on hydrologic and biogeochemical processes in an agricultural catchment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. Sci Total Environ 637–638: 1443–1454. |
[36] |
Gleick PH (1989) Climate change, hydrology, and water resources. Rev Geophys 27: 329–344. doi: 10.1029/RG027i003p00329
![]() |
[37] |
Dyer F, ElSawah S, Croke B, et al. (2014) The effects of climate change on ecologically-relevant flow regime and water quality attributes. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 28: 67–82. doi: 10.1007/s00477-013-0744-8
![]() |
[38] |
Ferrer J, Pérez-Martín MA, Jiménez S, et al. (2012) GIS-based models for water quantity and quality assessment in the Júcar River Basin, Spain, including climate change effects. Sci Total Environ 440: 42–59. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.032
![]() |
[39] | Van Liew M, Feng S, Pathak T (2013) Assessing climate change impacts on water balance, runoff, and water quality at the field scale for four locations in the heartland. Transactions of the ASABE 56: 833–900. |
[40] |
Butterbach-Bahl K, Dannenmann M (2011) Denitrification and associated soil N2O emissions due to agricultural activities in a changing climate. Curr Opin Env Sust 3: 389–395. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2011.08.004
![]() |
[41] | OEPA Ohio Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Available from: https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/wqs/ONRS_addendum.pdf. |
[42] | OEPA Ohio water resource inventory, executive summary: Summary, conclusions, and recommendations Division of Surface Water and Monitoring Assessment Section, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. Available from: https://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/exsumm96.pdf. |
[43] |
Tong STY, Liu AJ, Goodrich JA (2007) Climate change impacts on nutrient and sediment loads in a Midwestern agricultural watershed. J Environ Inform 9: 18–28. doi: 10.3808/jei.200700084
![]() |
[44] | Rowe GL, Baker NT. National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Great and Little Miami River Basins, 1997. Available from: https://pubs.water.usgs.gov/circ1229. |
[45] | Cross WP, Drainage areas of Ohio streams, supplement to Gazetteer of Ohio streams; Ohio Water Plan Inventory Report: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1967, 61. |
[46] | OEPA East Fork Little Miami River comprehensive water quality report, Little Miami River Basin, Clinton, Highland, Brown, and Clermont Counties: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Available from: http://msdgc.org/downloads/initiatives/water_quality/2012_lmr_biological_water_quality_study. pdf. |
[47] | Rankin ET, Yoder CO, Mishne D. Ohio water resources inventory executive summary-Summary, conclusions and recommendation: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, 75 p. Available from: https://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/exsumm96.pdf. |
[48] | Miami Conservancy District Flood protection dams: Miami Conservancy District, 2018. Available from: http://www.conservancy.com/dams.asp#dams. |
[49] | National Research Council Alternative agriculture, National Academy Press, 1989. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/1208/alternative-agriculture. |
[50] |
Dickey E, Shelton DP, Jasa P, et al. (1985) Soil erosion from tillage systems used in soybean and corn residues. T ASAE 28: 1124–1130. doi: 10.13031/2013.32399
![]() |
[51] | Walters D, Jasa P. Conservation tillage in the United States: An overview, 2018. Available from: http://agecon.okstate.edu/isct/labranza/walters/conservation.doc. |
[52] |
Tebrügge F, Düring R-A (1999) Reducing tillage intensity - a review of results from a long-term study in Germany. Soil Tillage Res 53: 15–28. doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00073-2
![]() |
[53] |
Armand R, Bockstaller C, Auzet A-V, et al. (2009) Runoff generation related to intra-field soil surface characteristics variability: Application to conservation tillage context. Soil Tillage Res 102: 27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2008.07.009
![]() |
[54] |
Borie F, Rubio R, Ruanet JL, et al. (2006) Effects of tillage systems on soil characteristics, glomalin and mycorrhizal propagules in a Chilean Ultisol. Soil Tillage Res 88: 253–261. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.06.004
![]() |
[55] |
Rocha EO, Calijuri ML, Santiago AF, et al. (2012) The contribution of conservation practices in reducing runoff, soil loss, and transport of nutrients at the watershed level. Water Resour Manage 26: 3831–3852. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0106-1
![]() |
[56] |
Jarecki MK, Lal R (2003) Crop management for soil carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 22: 471–502. doi: 10.1080/713608318
![]() |
[57] | Mangalassery S, Sjögersten S, Sparkes DL, et al. (2014) To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Sci Rep 4: 4586. |
[58] | Baker NT. Tillage practices in the conterminous United States, 1989–2004-Datasets aggregated by watershed, USGS, 2011, 22 p. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds573/pdf/dataseries573final.pdf. |
[59] |
Cox WJ, Zobel RW, van Es HM, et al. (1990) Growth development and yield of maize under three tillage systems in the northeastern U.S.A. Soil Tillage Res 18: 295–310. doi: 10.1016/0167-1987(90)90067-N
![]() |
[60] |
Ruffo ML, Bollero GA (2003) Modeling rye and hairy vetch residue decomposition as a function of degree-days and decomposition-days. Agron J 95: 900–907. doi: 10.2134/agronj2003.9000
![]() |
[61] |
Findlater PA, Carter DJ (1990) A model to predict the effects of prostrate ground cover on wind erosion. Aust J Soil Res 28: 609–622. doi: 10.1071/SR9900609
![]() |
[62] | Staver KW, Brinsfield RB (1998) Using cereal grain winter cover crops to reduce groundwater nitrate contamination in the mid-Atlantic coastal plain. J Soil Water Conserv 53: 230–240. |
[63] |
Whish JPM, Price L, Castor PA (2009) Do spring cover crops rob water and so reduce wheat yields in the northern grain zone of eastern Australia? Crop Pasture Sci 60: 517–525. doi: 10.1071/CP08397
![]() |
[64] | Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Bailey BA (2018) Role of cover crops in improving soil and row crop productivity. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 36: 19–20. |
[65] | Hoorman JJ. Using cover crops to convert to no-till, 2018. Available from: https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/SAG-11. |
[66] |
Dabney SM, Delgado JA, Reeves DW (2001) Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 32: 1221–1250. doi: 10.1081/CSS-100104110
![]() |
[67] | SARE- CTIC Report of the 2013–2014 Cover Crop Survey. Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center and the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.; Conservation Technology Information Center: West Lafayette, Indiana, 2014. Available from: https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/From-the-Field/North-Central-SARE-From-the-Field/2013-14-Cover-Crops-Survey-Analysis. |
[68] |
Creamer NG, Baldwin KR (2000) An evaluation of summer cover crops for use in vegetable production systems in North Carolina. HortScience 35: 600–603. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.35.4.600
![]() |
[69] | SARE- CTIC Cover Crop survey report. Conservation Technology Information Center. 2014. Report of the 2013-14 Cover Crop Survey. Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center and the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program; Conservation Technology Information Center: West Lafayette, Indiana, 2015. Available from: https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/From-the-Field/North-Central-SARE-From-the-Field/2016-Cover-Crop-Survey-Analysis. |
[70] | Nokes S, Ward A. Surface water quality best management practices summary guide: Columbus, The Ohio State University Extension Factsheet, 1997. Available from: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/storm/technical_guidance. |
[71] |
Gorham T, Jia Y, Shum CK, et al. (2017) Ten-year survey of cyanobacterial blooms in Ohio's waterbodies using satellite remote sensing. Harmful Algae 66: 13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.hal.2017.04.013
![]() |
[72] | Goolsby DA, Battaglin WA, Lawrence GB, et al. Flux and sources of nutrients in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, 1999. Available from: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/das/das17.pdf. |
[73] | Baker DB, Richards RP, Kramer JW. Point source-nonpoint source trading: applicability to stream TMDLs in Ohio. In Proceedings of the Proceedings – Innovations in Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution, 2006, 328–337. |
[74] |
Scavia D, Justic D, Bierman VJ (2004) Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: Advice from three models. Estuaries 27: 419–425. doi: 10.1007/BF02803534
![]() |
[75] |
Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Alexander RB (1997) Regional interpretation of water-quality monitoring data. Water Resour Res 33: 2781–2798. doi: 10.1029/97WR02171
![]() |
[76] | Battaglin WA, Goolsby DA. Spatial data in geographic information system format on agricultural chemical use, land use, and cropping practices in the United States, 1995. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1994/4176/report.pdf. |
[77] |
Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Díaz RJ, et al. (2009) Global change and eutrophication of coastal waters. ICES J Mar Sci 66: 1528–1537. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp047
![]() |
[78] | Midwest Biodiversity Institute Biological and water quality assessment of the Great Miami River and tributaries 2013 Hamilton County, Ohio, 2014, 121. Available from: https://midwestbiodiversityinst.org/reports/biological-and-water-quality-study-of-the-little-miami-river-and-tributaries-2012-hamilton-county-ohio/LMR%202012%20MSDGC%20FINAL%20REPORT%2020130930.pdf. |
[79] | OEPA Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Available from: https://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/tmdl/2002IntReport/Ohio2002IntegratedReport_100102.pdf. |
[80] | MCD Water Data Report, Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio, 2015. Available from: https://www.mcdwater.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/2015-Water-Data-Report-FINAL-reduced.pdf. |
[81] | Hayhoe K, Edmonds J, Kopp RE, et al. (2017) Climate models, scenarios, and projections: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 133–160. |
[82] | IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland,. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr. |
[83] | IPCC Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Core Writing Team; Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr. |
[84] |
Meehl GA, Tebaldi C (2004) More intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science 305: 994–997. doi: 10.1126/science.1098704
![]() |
[85] |
Rosenzweig C, Major DC, Demong K, et al. (2007) Managing climate change risks in New York City's water system: assessment and adaptation planning. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 12: 1391–1409. doi: 10.1007/s11027-006-9070-5
![]() |
[86] | Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC. Global climate change impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press: UK, 2009. Available from: http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100601201.pdf. |
[87] | Lawrimore JH, Menne MJ, Gleason BE, et al. (2011) An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network monthly mean temperature data set, version 3. JGR Atmospheres 2011, 116. |
[88] |
Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, et al. (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561. doi: 10.1038/nature09440
![]() |
[89] | Lettenmaier DP, Milly PCD (2009) Land waters and sea level. Nature Geoscience 2009, 2, 3. |
[90] | Hatfield JL, Prueger JH (2004) Impacts of changing precipitation patterns on water quality. J Soil Water Conserv 59: 51–58. |
[91] |
Prowse TD, Beltaos S, Gardner JT, et al. (2006) Climate change, flow regulation and land-use effects on the hydrology of the Peace-Athabasca-Slave System; Findings from the Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative. Environ Monit Assess 113: 167–197. doi: 10.1007/s10661-005-9080-x
![]() |
[92] |
Zhang A, Zhang C, Fu G, et al. (2012) Assessments of impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff with SWAT for the Huifa River Basin, Northeast China. Water Resour Manage 26: 2199–2217. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0010-8
![]() |
[93] |
Ye L, Grimm NB (2013) Modelling potential impacts of climate change on water and nitrate export from a mid-sized, semiarid watershed in the US Southwest. Climatic Change 120: 419–431. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0827-z
![]() |
[94] |
Zahabiyoun B, Goodarzi MR, Bavani ARM, et al. (2013) Assessment of climate change impact on the Gharesou River Basin using SWAT hydrological model. CLEAN – Soil, Air, Water 41: 601–609. doi: 10.1002/clen.201100652
![]() |
[95] | Backlund,P, Janetos A Schimel D. The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Science Program, 2008, 240. |
[96] |
Peterson TC, Heim RR, Hirsch R, et al. (2013) Monitoring and understanding changes in heat waves, cold waves, floods, and droughts in the United States: State of knowledge. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 94: 821–834. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1
![]() |
[97] |
Dudula J, Randhir TO (2016) Modeling the influence of climate change on watershed systems: Adaptation through targeted practices. J Hydrol 541: 703–713. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.07.020
![]() |
[98] |
Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change. Science 292: 673–679. doi: 10.1126/science.292.5517.673
![]() |
[99] |
Feeley KJ, Silman MR (2010) Land-use and climate change effects on population size and extinction risk of Andean plants. Glob Chang Biol 16: 3215–3222. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02197.x
![]() |
[100] |
Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37: 637–669. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100
![]() |
[101] |
Poloczanska ES, Brown CJ, Sydeman WJ, et al. (2013) Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Clim Chang 3: 919–925. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1958
![]() |
[102] |
Runion GB (2003) Climate change and plant pathosystems: Future disease prevention starts here. New Phytol 159: 531–533. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00868.x
![]() |
[103] |
Smith DL, Almaraz JJ (2004) Climate change and crop production: contributions, impacts, and adaptations. Can J Plant Pathol 26: 253–266. doi: 10.1080/07060660409507142
![]() |
[104] |
Ashmore M, Toet S, Emberson L (2006) Ozone – a significant threat to future world food production? New Phytol 170: 201–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01709.x
![]() |
[105] |
Alexander JM, Diez JM, Levine JM (2015) Novel competitors shape species' responses to climate change. Nature 525: 515–518. doi: 10.1038/nature14952
![]() |
[106] | Duku C, Zwart SJ, Hein L (2018) Impacts of climate change on cropping patterns in a tropical, sub-humid watershed. PLOS ONE 13, e0192642. |
[107] |
Aguilera R, Marcé R, Sabater S (2015) Detection and attribution of global change effects on river nutrient dynamics in a large Mediterranean basin. Biogeosciences 12: 4085–4098. doi: 10.5194/bg-12-4085-2015
![]() |
[108] |
Cousino LK, Becker RH, Zmijewski KA (2015) Modeling the effects of climate change on water, sediment, and nutrient yields from the Maumee River watershed. J Hydrol Reg Stud 4: 762–775. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.06.017
![]() |
[109] | Cordovil C, Cruz S, Brito A, et al. (2018) A simplified nitrogen assessment in Tagus River Basin: A management focused review. Water 10, 406. |
[110] |
Easterling DR (2002) Recent changes in frost days and the frost-free season in the united states. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 83: 1327–1332. doi: 10.1175/1520-0477-83.9.1327
![]() |
[111] |
Easterling DR, Evans JL, Groisman PY, et al. (2000) Observed variability and trends in extreme climate events: A brief review. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 81: 417–426. doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0417:OVATIE>2.3.CO;2
![]() |
[112] | Williamson S, Lakhey S, Karetnikov D, et al. Economic impacts of climate change on Ohio; Center for Integrative Environmental Research, University of Maryland: College Park, Maryland, USA, 2008, 20. |
[113] |
Kundzewicz ZW, Mata LJ, Arnell NW, et al. (2008) The implications of projected climate change for freshwater resources and their management. Hydrolog Sci J 53: 3–10. doi: 10.1623/hysj.53.1.3
![]() |
[114] |
Milly PCD, Dunne KA, Vecchia AV (2005) Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438: 347–350. doi: 10.1038/nature04312
![]() |
[115] |
Wu S-Y (2010) Potential impact of climate change on flooding in the Upper Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio, USA: a simulation-based approach. Hydrolog Sci J 55: 1251–1263. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2010.529814
![]() |
[116] | Jha M, Pan Z, Takle ES, et al. (2004) Impacts of climate change on streamflow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin: A regional climate model perspective. JGR Atmospheres 2004, 109. |
[117] |
Pathak P, Kalra A, Ahmad S (2017) Temperature and precipitation changes in the Midwestern United States: implications for water management. Int J Water Resour Dev 33: 1003–1019. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2016.1238343
![]() |
[118] |
Milly PCD, Dunne KA (2001) Trends in evaporation and surface cooling in the Mississippi River Basin. Geophys Res Lett 28: 1219–1222. doi: 10.1029/2000GL012321
![]() |
[119] | WorldClim - Global Climate Data, Free climate data for ecological modeling and GIS. Available from: http://www.worldclim.org. |
[120] |
Gent PR, Danabasoglu G, Donner LJ, et al. (2011) The Community Climate System Model Version 4. J Climate 24: 4973–4991. doi: 10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1
![]() |
[121] |
Watanabe M, Suzuki T, O'ishi R, et al. (2010) Improved climate simulation by MIROC5: Mean States, Variability, and Climate Sensitivity. J Climate 23: 6312–6335. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3679.1
![]() |
[122] |
Collins WJ, Bellouin N, Doutriaux-Boucher M, et al. (2011) Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model – HadGEM2. Geosci Model Dev 4: 1051–1075. doi: 10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011
![]() |
[123] | Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2011) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 93: 485–498. |
[124] | Sheffield J, Barrett AP, Colle B, et al. (2013) North American climate in CMIP5 experiments. Part I: Evaluation of historical simulations of continental and regional climatology. J Climate 26: 9209–9245. |
[125] |
van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, et al. (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109: 5. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
![]() |
[126] |
Knutti R, Sedláček J (2013) Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nat Clim Chang 3: 369–373. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1716
![]() |
[127] |
Zwiers FW, Kharin VV (1998) Changes in the extremes of the climate simulated by CCC GCM2 under CO2 doubling. J Climate 11: 2200–2222. doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<2200:CITEOT>2.0.CO;2
![]() |
[128] |
Kharin VV, Zwiers FW (2000). Changes in the extremes in an ensemble of transient climate simulations with a coupled atmosphere–ocean GCM. J Climate 13: 3760–3788. doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<3760:CITEIA>2.0.CO;2
![]() |
[129] | Cubash U, Meehl GA. Projections of future climate change. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.; Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third IPCC Scientific Assessment; Cambridge University Press: UK, 2001: 524–582. |
[130] |
Semenov V, Bengtsson L (2002) Secular trends in daily precipitation characteristics: greenhouse gas simulation with a coupled AOGCM. Clim Dyn 19: 123–140. doi: 10.1007/s00382-001-0218-4
![]() |
[131] | Murdoch PS, Baron JS, Miller TL (2000) Potential effects of climate change on surface water quality in North America 1. JAWRA 36: 347–366. |
[132] |
Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, Jones CA (1998) Hydrologic modelling of the United States with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. Int J Water Resour Dev 14: 315–325. doi: 10.1080/07900629849231
![]() |
[133] | Arnold JG, Williams JR, Srinivasan R, et al. SWAT-Soil and Water Assessment Tool User Manual, 2018. Available from: https://swat.tamu.edu/media/69296/swat-io-documentation-2012.pdf. |
[134] |
Pease LM, Oduor P, Padmanabhan G (2010) Estimating sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorous loads from the Pipestem Creek watershed, North Dakota, using AnnAGNPS. Comput Geosci 36: 282–291. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.004
![]() |
[135] | Borah DK, Xia R, Bera M. DWSM−A dynamic watershed simulation model for studying agricultural nonpoint−source pollution. Paper number 012028, ASAE Annual Meeting St. Joseph, Michigan, 2001. |
[136] | Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL, et al. Hydrological Simulation Program--Fortran, User's manual for version 11: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: National Exposure Research Laboratory, 1997, 755. |
[137] |
Singh VP, Frevert DK (2002) Mathematical models of large watershed hydrology. J Hydrol Eng 7: 270–292. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2002)7:4(270)
![]() |
[138] |
Shen Z, Liao Q, Hong Q, Gong Y (2012) An overview of research on agricultural non-point source pollution modelling in China. Sep Pur Technol 84: 104–111. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2011.01.018
![]() |
[139] | Weller DE, Baker ME (2014) Cropland riparian buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Spatial patterns and effects on nitrate loads delivered to streams. JAWRA 50: 696–712. |
[140] |
Sharifi A, Lang MW, McCarty GW, et al. (2016) Improving model prediction reliability through enhanced representation of wetland soil processes and constrained model auto calibration – A paired watershed study. J Hydrol 541: 1088–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.022
![]() |
[141] |
Borah DK, Bera M (2003) Watershed-scale hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution models: Review of mathematical bases. T ASAE 46: 1553–1566. doi: 10.13031/2013.15644
![]() |
[142] |
Robson BJ (2014) State of the art in modelling of phosphorus in aquatic systems: Review, criticisms and commentary. Environ Modell Softw 61: 339–359. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.012
![]() |
[143] |
Rinke A, Dethloff K, Cassano JJ, et al. (2006) Evaluation of an ensemble of Arctic regional climate models: spatiotemporal fields during the SHEBA year. Clim Dyn 26: 459–472. doi: 10.1007/s00382-005-0095-3
![]() |
[144] |
Mohammed IN, Bomblies A, Wemple BC (2015) The use of CMIP5 data to simulate climate change impacts on flow regime within the Lake Champlain Basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 3: 160–186. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.01.002
![]() |
[145] |
Nour MH, Smith DW, El-Din MG, et al. (2008) Effect of watershed subdivision on water-phase phosphorus modelling: An artificial neural network modelling application. J Environ Eng Sci 7: 95–108. doi: 10.1139/S08-043
![]() |
[146] |
Kim RJ, Loucks DP, Stedinger JR (2012) Artificial neural network models of watershed nutrient loading. Water Resour Manage 26: 2781–2797. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0045-x
![]() |
[147] | Tang X, Xia M, Guan F, et al. (2016) Spatial distribution of soil nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium stocks in Moso bamboo forests in subtropical China. Forests 7, 267. |
[148] |
Mohanty S, Jha MK, Kumar A, et al. (2010) Artificial neural network modeling for groundwater level forecasting in a river island of eastern India. Water Resour Manage 24: 1845–1865. doi: 10.1007/s11269-009-9527-x
![]() |
[149] |
Kalin L, Isik S, Schoonover JE, et al. (2010) Predicting water quality in unmonitored watersheds using artificial neural networks. J Environ Qual 39: 1429–1440. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0441
![]() |
[150] |
Fogelman S, Blumenstein M, Zhao H (2006) Estimation of chemical oxygen demand by ultraviolet spectroscopic profiling and artificial neural networks. Neural Comput Applic 15: 197–203. doi: 10.1007/s00521-005-0015-9
![]() |
[151] |
Dogan E, Sengorur B, Koklu R (2009) Modeling biological oxygen demand of the Melen River in Turkey using an artificial neural network technique. J Environ Manag 90: 1229–1235. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.06.004
![]() |
[152] |
Iliadis LS, Maris F (2007) An artificial neural network model for mountainous water-resources management: The case of Cyprus mountainous watersheds. Environ Modell Softw 22: 1066–1072. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.05.026
![]() |
[153] |
Noori N, Kalin L (2016) Coupling SWAT and ANN models for enhanced daily streamflow prediction. J Hydrol 533: 141–151. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.11.050
![]() |
[154] |
Okkan U, Serbes ZA (2012) Rainfall–runoff modeling using least squares support vector machines. Environmetrics 23: 549–564. doi: 10.1002/env.2154
![]() |
[155] |
Huang S, Chang J, Huang Q, Chen Y (2014) Monthly streamflow prediction using modified EMD-based support vector machine. J Hydrol 511: 764–775. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.062
![]() |
[156] | Jajarmizadeh M, Harun S, Salarpour M. An assessment of a proposed hybrid neural network for daily flow prediction in arid climate, 2014. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mse/2014/635018. |
[157] | Gassman P, Reyes M, Green C, Arnold J (2007) The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical development, applications, and future research directions. T ASABE 7: 1211–1250. |
[158] | Niraula R, Kalin L, Wang R, et al. (2012) Determining nutrient and sediment critical source areas with SWAT model: effect of lumped calibration. T ASABE 55: 137–147. |
[159] | White M, Gambone M, Yen H, et al. (2015) Regional blue and green water balances and use by selected crops in the U.S. JAWRA 51: 1626–1642. |
[160] |
Wang R, Bowling LC, Cherkauer KA (2016) Estimation of the effects of climate variability on crop yield in the Midwest USA. Agric For Meteorol 216: 141–156. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.10.001
![]() |
[161] | Yen H, White MJ, Arnold JG, et al. (2016) Western Lake Erie Basin: Soft-data-constrained, NHDPlus resolution watershed modeling and exploration of applicable conservation scenarios. Sci Total Environ 569–570: 1265–1281. |
[162] |
Arnold JG, Fohner N (2005) Current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrol Process 19: 563–572. doi: 10.1002/hyp.5611
![]() |
[163] | Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, et al. (2001) Validation of the Swat Model on a Large Rwer Basin with Point and Nonpoint Sources. JAWRA 37: 1169–1188. |
[164] |
Bosch DD, Sheridan JM, Batten HL, et al. (2004) Evaluation of the SWAT model on a coastal plain agricultural watershed. T ASAE 47: 1493–1506. doi: 10.13031/2013.17629
![]() |
[165] |
Saleh A, Du B (2004) Evaluation of SWAT and HSPF within BASINS program for the Upper North Bosque River watershed in central Texas. T ASAE 47: 1039–1049. doi: 10.13031/2013.16577
![]() |
[166] |
Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS (2005) Development of effective management plan for critical subwatersheds using SWAT model. Hydrol Process 19: 809–826. doi: 10.1002/hyp.5618
![]() |
[167] | Grunwald S, Qi C (2006) Gis-Based Water Quality Modeling in the Sandusky Watershed, Ohio, USA. JAWRA 42: 957–973. |
[168] | Setegn SG, Srinivasan R, Dargahi B (2008) Hydrological Modelling in the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia Using SWAT Model. TOHJ, 2: 49–62. |
[169] | SWAT Literature Database SWAT Literature Database for Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles Available from: https://www.card.iastate.edu/swat_articles. |
[170] |
Tuo Y, Chiogna G, Disse M, et al. (2015) A multi-criteria model selection protocol for practical applications to nutrient transport at the catchment scale. Water 7: 2851–2880. doi: 10.3390/w7062851
![]() |
[171] |
Krysanova V, Hattermann F, Huang S, et al. (2015) Modelling climate and land-use change impacts with SWIM: lessons learnt from multiple applications. Hydrol Sci J 60: 606–635. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2014.925560
![]() |
[172] |
Čerkasova N, Umgiesser G, Ertürk A (2018) Development of a hydrology and water quality model for a large transboundary river watershed to investigate the impacts of climate change – A SWAT application. Ecol Eng 124: 99–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.025
![]() |
[173] | Cho J, Oh C, Choi J, et al. (2018) Climate change impacts on agricultural non-point source pollution with consideration of uncertainty in CMIP5. Irrig Drain 65: 209–220. |
[174] |
Yang X, Warren R, He Y, et al. (2018) Impacts of climate change on TN load and its control in a River Basin with complex pollution sources. Sci Total Environ 615: 1155–1163. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.288
![]() |
[175] |
Lee S, Yeo I-Y, Sadeghi AM, et al. (2018) Comparative analyses of hydrological responses of two adjacent watersheds to climate variability and change using the SWAT model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22: 689–708. doi: 10.5194/hess-22-689-2018
![]() |
[176] |
Jha MK, Gassman PW, Panagopoulos Y (2015) Regional changes in nitrate loadings in the Upper Mississippi River Basin under predicted mid-century climate. Reg Environ Change 15: 449–460. doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0539-y
![]() |
[177] |
Chiew FHS, McMahon TA (1993) Detection of trend or change in annual flow of Australian rivers. Int J Clim 13: 643–653. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370130605
![]() |
[178] |
Gellens D, Roulin E (1998) Streamflow response of Belgian catchments to IPCC climate change scenarios. J Hydrol 210: 242–258. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00192-9
![]() |
[179] | Jha M, Gassman PW, Secchi S, et al. (2004) Effect of watershed subdivision on Swat flow, sediment, and nutrient predictions. JAWRA 40: 811–825. |
[180] |
Glavan M, Ceglar A, Pintar M (2015) Assessing the impacts of climate change on water quantity and quality modelling in small Slovenian Mediterranean catchment – lesson for policy and decision makers. Hydrol Process 29: 3124–3144. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10429
![]() |
[181] |
Kroeze C, Seitzinger SP (1998) Nitrogen inputs to rivers, estuaries and continental shelves and related nitrous oxide emissions in 1990 and 2050: a global model. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 52: 195–212. doi: 10.1023/A:1009780608708
![]() |
[182] |
Seitzinger SP, Kroeze C, Bouwman AF, et al. (2002) Global patterns of dissolved inorganic and particulate nitrogen inputs to coastal systems: Recent conditions and future projections. Estuaries 25: 640–655. doi: 10.1007/BF02804897
![]() |
[183] |
Galloway JN, Dentener FJ, Capone DG, et al. (2004) Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70: 153–226. doi: 10.1007/s10533-004-0370-0
![]() |
[184] | Bouwman AF, Drecht GV, Knoop JM, et al. (2005) Exploring changes in river nitrogen export to the world's oceans. Global Biogeochem Cy 19: GB1002. |
[185] |
Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, et al. (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292: 281–284. doi: 10.1126/science.1057544
![]() |
[186] | Fisher R (2013) Cost estimates of phosphorus removal at wastewater treatment plants.; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, p. 50. |
[187] |
Kronvang B, Bechmann M, Pedersen ML, et al. (2003) Phosphorus dynamics and export in streams draining micro-catchments: Development of empirical models. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166: 469–474. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200321164
![]() |
[188] |
Osmond D, Meals D, Hoag D, et al. (2012). Improving conservation practices programming to protect water quality in agricultural watersheds: Lessons learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Conservation Effects Assessment Project. J Soil Water Conserv 67: 122–127. doi: 10.2489/jswc.67.2.122
![]() |
[189] | Gburek WJ, Drungil CC, Srinivasan MS, et al. (2002) Variable-source-area controls on phosphorus transport: Bridging the gap between research and design. J Soil Water Conserv 57: 534–543. |
[190] |
Gitau MW, Veith TL, Gburek WJ (2004) Farm-level optimization of BMP placement for cost-effective pollution reduction. T ASAE 47: 1923–1931. doi: 10.13031/2013.17805
![]() |
[191] | Arabi M, Govindaraju RS, Hantush MM (2006) Cost‐effective allocation of watershed management practices using a genetic algorithm - Arabi. Water Resouce Res 42: W10429. |
[192] | Caswell M, Fuglie K, Ingram C, et al. Adoption of agricultural production practices. Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 792, USDA, 2001. |
[193] |
Gabriel M, Knightes C, Cooter E, et al. (2018) Modeling the combined effects of changing land cover, climate, and atmospheric deposition on nitrogen transport in the Neuse River Basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 18: 68–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.05.004
![]() |
[194] |
Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA, Shackley S, et al. (2005) A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK. Climatic Change 71: 9–41. doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-5927-y
![]() |
[195] |
Dowd BM, Press D, Huertos ML (2008) Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: The case of California's Central Coast. Agr Ecosyst Environ 128: 151–161. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.05.014
![]() |
1. | Salma Mukhtar, Mehwish Aslam, 2020, Chapter 7, 978-3-030-53932-0, 115, 10.1007/978-3-030-53933-7_7 | |
2. | Galal El-Habaak, Rafat Khalaphallah, Mokhles Hassan, Mohamed Askalany, Mahmoud Abdel-Hakeem, Characterization and exploitation of black shale as unconventional source of biohydrogen: a case study from the Abu-Tartur mine, Western Desert, Egypt, 2020, 13, 1866-7511, 10.1007/s12517-020-05482-9 | |
3. | S. Chozhavendhan, G. Karthiga Devi, B. Bharathiraja, R. Praveen Kumar, S. Elavazhagan, 2020, 9780128189962, 195, 10.1016/B978-0-12-818996-2.00009-0 | |
4. | Prakash K. Sarangi, Sonil Nanda, Biohydrogen Production Through Dark Fermentation, 2020, 43, 0930-7516, 601, 10.1002/ceat.201900452 | |
5. | Shikha Dahiya, Sulogna Chatterjee, Omprakash Sarkar, S. Venkata Mohan, Renewable hydrogen production by dark-fermentation: Current status, challenges and perspectives, 2021, 321, 09608524, 124354, 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124354 | |
6. | Anoop Singh, Dheeraj Rathore, Deepak Pant, Shaili Srivastava, 2020, Chapter 1, 978-981-15-6020-0, 1, 10.1007/978-981-15-6021-7_1 | |
7. | M. Kamaraj, K. K. Ramachandran, J. Aravind, Biohydrogen production from waste materials: benefits and challenges, 2020, 17, 1735-1472, 559, 10.1007/s13762-019-02577-z | |
8. | Shiv Prasad, Anoop Singh, Nicholas E. Korres, Dheeraj Rathore, Surajbhan Sevda, Deepak Pant, Sustainable utilization of crop residues for energy generation: A life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective, 2020, 303, 09608524, 122964, 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122964 | |
9. | Lakshana G Nair, Komal Agrawal, Pradeep Verma, An overview of sustainable approaches for bioenergy production from agro-industrial wastes, 2022, 6, 27724271, 100086, 10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100086 | |
10. | M. Rajamehala, Renugaa Su, B. Gopalakrishnan, A. Muthu Kumara Pandian, M. Vijay Pradhap Singh, S. Chozhavendhan, 2022, 9780323900409, 3, 10.1016/B978-0-323-90040-9.00019-9 | |
11. | Shruti Choudhary, Harmeet Singh Bakala, Loveleen Kaur Sarao, Sandeep Kaur, 2023, Chapter 1, 978-981-19-6229-5, 1, 10.1007/978-981-19-6230-1_1 | |
12. | 2021, 9781119042761, 173, 10.1002/9781119042792.part2 | |
13. | Bishwambhar Mishra, Rajasri Yadavalli, Y. Vineetha, C. Nagendranatha Reddy, 2021, 9780128224014, 7, 10.1016/B978-0-12-822401-4.00014-3 | |
14. | Anita Šalić, Bruno Zelić, A Game Changer: Microfluidic Technology for Enhancing Biohydrogen Production—Small Size for Great Performance, 2022, 15, 1996-1073, 7065, 10.3390/en15197065 | |
15. | Palas Samanta, Tarakeshwar Senapati, Sukhendu Dey, Apurba Ratan Ghosh, Sandipan Pal, 2022, Chapter 165-1, 978-981-16-4921-9, 1, 10.1007/978-981-16-4921-9_165-1 | |
16. | Dolores Hidalgo, Jesús M. Martín-Marroquín, David Díez, 2022, Chapter 8, 978-981-19-1994-7, 181, 10.1007/978-981-19-1995-4_8 | |
17. | R. Thiruchelvi R. Thiruchelvi, N. Kabila Kumari, K. N. Rajnish, Potential of Bio Hydrogen Production from Dark Fermentation of Sewage Waste Water – A Review, 2022, 19, 24562602, 347, 10.13005/bbra/2989 | |
18. | Rahul Gautam, Jagdeep K. Nayak, Neil V. Ress, Robert Steinberger-Wilckens, Uttam Kumar Ghosh, Bio-hydrogen production through microbial electrolysis cell: Structural components and influencing factors, 2023, 455, 13858947, 140535, 10.1016/j.cej.2022.140535 | |
19. | G. Allegretti, M.A. Montoya, L.A.S. Bertussi, E. Talamini, When being renewable may not be enough: Typologies of trends in energy and carbon footprint towards sustainable development, 2022, 168, 13640321, 112860, 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112860 | |
20. | Arunachalam Bose Sathya, Arunachalam Thirunavukkarasu, Rajarathinam Nithya, Abhishek Nandan, Krishnamoorthy Sakthishobana, Anand Kishore Kola, Raja Sivashankar, Hoang Anh Tuan, Balakrishnan Deepanraj, Microalgal biofuel production: Potential challenges and prospective research, 2023, 332, 00162361, 126199, 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126199 | |
21. | Chayanika Putatunda, Manya Behl, Preeti Solanki, Samriti Sharma, Shashi Kant Bhatia, Abhishek Walia, Ravi Kant Bhatia, Current challenges and future technology in photofermentation-driven biohydrogen production by utilizing algae and bacteria, 2022, 03603199, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10.042 | |
22. | Nitish Venkateswarlu Mogili, Nithya Murugesan, Seenivasan Ayothiraman, Rahul Gautam, Narendra Naik Deshavath, Rajeswara Reddy Erva, 2022, 9780323853873, 165, 10.1016/B978-0-323-85387-3.00009-4 | |
23. | Nisha Singh, Reeta Rani Singhania, Poonam S. Nigam, Cheng-Di Dong, Anil Kumar Patel, Munish Puri, Global status of lignocellulosic biorefinery: Challenges and perspectives, 2022, 344, 09608524, 126415, 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126415 | |
24. | Santhana Krishnan, Hesam Kamyab, Mohd Nasrullah, Zularisam Abdul Wahid, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Alissara Reungsang, Sumate Chaiprapat, Recent advances in process improvement of dark fermentative hydrogen production through metabolic engineering strategies, 2023, 343, 00162361, 127980, 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127980 | |
25. | M. Rajamehala, A. Kaviprabha, A. Muthu Kumara Pandian, M. Vijay Pradhap Singh, S. Karthikadevi, B. Gopalakrishnan, S. Chozhavendhan, 2022, 9780323900409, 207, 10.1016/B978-0-323-90040-9.00013-8 | |
26. | Richa Kothari, Har Mohan Singh, Kajol Goria, Shubham Raina, V. V. Tyagi, Shamshad Ahmad, Ramkishore Singh, Atul Sharma, Shane Sheoran, Frank Bruno, D. Buddhi, Utilization of rice crop residue to fortify biogas production with mitigation of aerosols for sustainable environment: mechanism, potential strategies, and opportunities, 2024, 2190-6815, 10.1007/s13399-024-05571-9 | |
27. | Ashfaq Ahmad, Rambabu K, Shadi W. Hasan, Pau Loke Show, Fawzi Banat, Biohydrogen production through dark fermentation: Recent trends and advances in transition to a circular bioeconomy, 2024, 52, 03603199, 335, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.161 | |
28. | Chandra Tejaswi Padigala, Gour Gopal Satpati, Mamata Singhvi, Lalit Goswami, Anamika Kushwaha, Sheetal Oraon, Kristine Aleksanyan, Regina S. Smykovskaya, Hemamalini Rawindran, Lim Jun Wei, Rajiv Rajak, Soumya Pandit, Pritam Kumar Dikshit, Nanotechnological advancement in green hydrogen production from organic waste: Recent developments, techno–economic, and life cycle analyses, 2024, 92, 03603199, 672, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.10.216 | |
29. | Abdulkarem I. Amhamed, Anwar Hamdan Al Assaf, Laurent M. Le Page, Odi Fawwaz Alrebei, Alternative sustainable aviation fuel and energy (SAFE)- A Review with selected simulation cases of study, 2024, 11, 23524847, 3317, 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.03.002 | |
30. | Nitesh Premchand Machhirake, Kumar Raja Vanapalli, Sunil Kumar, Bijayananda Mohanty, Biohydrogen from waste feedstocks: An energy opportunity for decarbonization in developing countries, 2024, 252, 00139351, 119028, 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119028 | |
31. | Narasiman Nirmala, Ghodke Praveen, Sharma AmitKumar, PanneerSelvam SundarRajan, Athmanathan Baskaran, Packiyadas Priyadharsini, SivaPerumal SanjayKumar, SelvananthamShanmuganatham Dawn, Kirubanandam Grace Pavithra, Jayaseelan Arun, Arivalagan Pugazhendhi, A review on biological biohydrogen production: Outlook on genetic strain enhancements, reactor model and techno-economics analysis, 2023, 896, 00489697, 165143, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165143 | |
32. | Emisha L., Prince D., S.J. Vijay, Jebasingh Bhagavathsingh, Prathap Somu, Nagaraj Basavegowda, Dibyajyoti Haldar, Technological advancement in the production of biohydrogen from lignocellulosic biomass: A review, 2024, 12, 22133437, 113084, 10.1016/j.jece.2024.113084 | |
33. | Gayathri Priya Iragavarapu, Syed Shahed Imam, Omprakash Sarkar, Srinivasula Venkata Mohan, Young-Cheol Chang, Motakatla Venkateswar Reddy, Sang-Hyoun Kim, Naresh Kumar Amradi, Bioprocessing of Waste for Renewable Chemicals and Fuels to Promote Bioeconomy, 2023, 16, 1996-1073, 3873, 10.3390/en16093873 | |
34. | Manoj Kumar, Raj Kumar Tiwari, Gunjan Vasant Bonde, Kaushik Das, Ranjan Kumar Bhagobaty, Suvendu Manna, Current trends on the advancement and limitation of biohydrogen research: An exclusive overview, 2024, 1944-7442, 10.1002/ep.14521 | |
35. | Fatima Akram, Taseer Fatima, Ramesha Ibrar, Ikram ul Haq, Biohydrogen: Production, promising progressions and challenges of a green carbon-free energy, 2024, 69, 22131388, 103893, 10.1016/j.seta.2024.103893 | |
36. | Yen-Ju Lin, Lee-Feng Chien, Hydrogen production in the Chlorella sp. DT mutants carrying heterologous electron donor ferredoxin 1 of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, 2024, 69, 07173458, 11, 10.1016/j.ejbt.2024.03.001 | |
37. | Abeer Fawad, Muhammad Abdul Qyyum, Absaar Ul Jabbar, A comprehensive simulation study of integrated gasification, enrichment, and separation processes for biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse, 2024, 03603199, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.05.332 | |
38. | Ankush Rani, Saurabh Kumar Gupta, Suraj Kumar Singh, Gowhar Meraj, Pankaj Kumar, Shruti Kanga, Bojan Đurin, Dragana Dogančić, Predicting Future Land Use Utilizing Economic and Land Surface Parameters with ANN and Markov Chain Models, 2023, 4, 2673-4834, 728, 10.3390/earth4030039 | |
39. | Akshay Loyte, Jiwak Suryawanshi, Sacheth Sri Kiran Bellala, Roshan V. Marode, Yuvarajan Devarajan, Current Status and Obstacles in the Sustainable Synthesis of Biohydrogen from Microalgal Species, 2024, 25901230, 103455, 10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103455 | |
40. | Palas Samanta, Tarakeshwar Senapati, Sukhendu Dey, Apurba Ratan Ghosh, Sandipan Pal, 2025, Chapter 165, 978-981-97-4617-0, 1328, 10.1007/978-981-97-4618-7_165 | |
41. | Vijayata Singh, Swati Mishra, Deepjyoti Singh, 2025, Chapter 13, 978-981-97-9872-8, 389, 10.1007/978-981-97-9873-5_13 | |
42. | Ciro Vasmara, Stefania Galletti, Stefano Cianchetta, Enrico Ceotto, Hydrogen Production from Renewable and Non-Renewable Sources with a Focus on Bio-Hydrogen from Giant reed (Arundo donax L.), a Review, 2025, 18, 1996-1073, 709, 10.3390/en18030709 | |
43. | Jayachitra Murugaiyan, Anantharaman Narayanan, Samsudeen Naina Mohamed, Influence of zinc ferrite nanocomposites for enhancing biohydrogen production during distillery wastewater treatment in microbial electrolysis cell, 2025, 392, 00162361, 134872, 10.1016/j.fuel.2025.134872 |
Production-Process | Maximum production rate (mmol H2/L h−1) | Employed Microorganism |
Direct Bio-photolysis | 0.07 | Chlamydomonas reinhardtii |
Indirect Bio-photolysis | 0.36 | Anabaena variabilis |
Photo-Fermentation | 0.16 | Rhodobacter spheroides |
Dark-Fermentation | 64.5–75.6 | Enterobacter cloacae DM 11, Clostridium sp. strain No. 2 |
Two-stage fermentation (Dark fermentation + Photolysis) | 47.9–51.2 51.20 | Enterobacter cloacae DM 11 + Rhodobacter Sphaeroides OU 001 Mixed microbial flora + Rhodobacter sphaeroides OU 001 |
Production-Process | Advantages in Process used | Disadvantages in Process used |
Direct Bio-photolysis | 1. water and sunlight produce hydrogen 2. Ten-fold conversion of Solar energy than in crops and trees |
1. Requirement of High light intensity 2. Oxygen can be hazardous for the system |
Indirect Bio-photolysis | 1. Produces hydrogen from water 2. Ability to fix nitrogen from atmosphere |
1. Removal of hydrogenase enzymes to avoid degradation of hydrogen 2. Lower photochemical efficiency 3. Oxygen presence at 30% 4. Presence of oxygen is inhibitory for enzyme nitrogenase |
Dark-Fermentation | 1. A range of feedstock can be used 2. Hydrogen production in dark 3. Metabolites can be used as added-value products |
1. Gas mixture requires cleaning from the presence of CO2 2. Yields of hydrogen is low |
Photo-Fermentation | 1. Wide-spectrum light energy is used 2. A range of feedstock can be used |
1. Light conversion efficiency is low 2. Presence of oxygen is inhibitory for enzyme hydrogenase |
S. No. | Methodology | Social Sustainability | Economical Sustainability | Environmental Sustainability | Reference |
1. | Exergy Model | Higher eco-exergy | [68] | ||
2. | Exergy Model | High | 1.5 g/L sodium acetate was an optimal carbon source for higher exergy | [69] | |
3. | Input-output (IO) Model | Investing US$1will generate US$3.22 to 3.50 | [60] | ||
4. | Societal lifetime cost (SLC) | Positive lifetime cost in long term | [62] | ||
5. | Societal lifetime cost | lowest externality costs of fuel cell vehicle | [63] | ||
6. | Financial feasibility analysis | Low levelized cost of energy | [58] | ||
7. | Financial feasibility analysis | High economic feasibility | [59] | ||
8. | Life cycle assessment (LCA) | CO 2 saving | [67] | ||
9. | Life cycle assessment | Environmental Benefit | [66] | ||
10. | Life cycle assessment | Positive energy balance | Reduction of GHG emission | [57] | |
11. | Life cycle assessment | GHG Saving | [57] | ||
12. | Techno-economic analysis | 26.75% return on investment and 24.07% rate of return in 5 year payback period. | [61] | ||
13. | Literature review | Safest fuel in term of toxicity and fire hazard | Zero emission fuel with consequential local air quality benefits | [65] | |
14. | Comparative LCA | Positive energy balance of biohydrogen than non-renewable hydrogen | Better performance of biohydrogen in term of abiotic depletion impact potential, cumulative non-renewable energy demand, and ozone layer depletion impact potential | [82] | |
15. | LCA survey | Biohydrogen in MECs provide environmental protection | [34] | ||
16. | Process optimization through response surface methodology | Positive energy yield | Water purification and clean energy | [35] |
Production-Process | Maximum production rate (mmol H2/L h−1) | Employed Microorganism |
Direct Bio-photolysis | 0.07 | Chlamydomonas reinhardtii |
Indirect Bio-photolysis | 0.36 | Anabaena variabilis |
Photo-Fermentation | 0.16 | Rhodobacter spheroides |
Dark-Fermentation | 64.5–75.6 | Enterobacter cloacae DM 11, Clostridium sp. strain No. 2 |
Two-stage fermentation (Dark fermentation + Photolysis) | 47.9–51.2 51.20 | Enterobacter cloacae DM 11 + Rhodobacter Sphaeroides OU 001 Mixed microbial flora + Rhodobacter sphaeroides OU 001 |
Production-Process | Advantages in Process used | Disadvantages in Process used |
Direct Bio-photolysis | 1. water and sunlight produce hydrogen 2. Ten-fold conversion of Solar energy than in crops and trees |
1. Requirement of High light intensity 2. Oxygen can be hazardous for the system |
Indirect Bio-photolysis | 1. Produces hydrogen from water 2. Ability to fix nitrogen from atmosphere |
1. Removal of hydrogenase enzymes to avoid degradation of hydrogen 2. Lower photochemical efficiency 3. Oxygen presence at 30% 4. Presence of oxygen is inhibitory for enzyme nitrogenase |
Dark-Fermentation | 1. A range of feedstock can be used 2. Hydrogen production in dark 3. Metabolites can be used as added-value products |
1. Gas mixture requires cleaning from the presence of CO2 2. Yields of hydrogen is low |
Photo-Fermentation | 1. Wide-spectrum light energy is used 2. A range of feedstock can be used |
1. Light conversion efficiency is low 2. Presence of oxygen is inhibitory for enzyme hydrogenase |
S. No. | Methodology | Social Sustainability | Economical Sustainability | Environmental Sustainability | Reference |
1. | Exergy Model | Higher eco-exergy | [68] | ||
2. | Exergy Model | High | 1.5 g/L sodium acetate was an optimal carbon source for higher exergy | [69] | |
3. | Input-output (IO) Model | Investing US$1will generate US$3.22 to 3.50 | [60] | ||
4. | Societal lifetime cost (SLC) | Positive lifetime cost in long term | [62] | ||
5. | Societal lifetime cost | lowest externality costs of fuel cell vehicle | [63] | ||
6. | Financial feasibility analysis | Low levelized cost of energy | [58] | ||
7. | Financial feasibility analysis | High economic feasibility | [59] | ||
8. | Life cycle assessment (LCA) | CO 2 saving | [67] | ||
9. | Life cycle assessment | Environmental Benefit | [66] | ||
10. | Life cycle assessment | Positive energy balance | Reduction of GHG emission | [57] | |
11. | Life cycle assessment | GHG Saving | [57] | ||
12. | Techno-economic analysis | 26.75% return on investment and 24.07% rate of return in 5 year payback period. | [61] | ||
13. | Literature review | Safest fuel in term of toxicity and fire hazard | Zero emission fuel with consequential local air quality benefits | [65] | |
14. | Comparative LCA | Positive energy balance of biohydrogen than non-renewable hydrogen | Better performance of biohydrogen in term of abiotic depletion impact potential, cumulative non-renewable energy demand, and ozone layer depletion impact potential | [82] | |
15. | LCA survey | Biohydrogen in MECs provide environmental protection | [34] | ||
16. | Process optimization through response surface methodology | Positive energy yield | Water purification and clean energy | [35] |