## 3 Results and Discussion
### Industrial-Scale (100 m\({}^{3}\))  
The evaluation of the environmental impact from the industrial-scale reactor (100 m\({}^{3}\)) was characterized in terms of the total impact of the batch, and one litre of culture, with the  
Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis from the demonstration-scale process, considering four alternative scenarios: (D1) the use of ozone sterilisation for cleaning; (D2) the use of ozone sterilisation of the culture medium; (D3) the use of reverse osmosis and UV sterilisation of the culture medium; (D4) reducing the biomass productivity by 20%. Impact categories: global warming (GW), stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD), terrestrial acidification (TA), freshwater eutrophication (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET), freshwater ecotoxicity (FET), marine ecotoxicity (MET), human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), fossil resource scarcity (FRS). respective mass and economic allocation for each extract (Table 6). The relative contribution of each subsystem of the system is depicted in Figure 6.  
The relative contribution (Figure 6) was again mostly impacted by the pre-inoculum and cultivation subsystems, with a higher proportion to S2 (95%), for the other subsystems; the average contribution was S1 (0.2-1%), S3 (1%), S4 (0.5%), S5 (0.5-4%), S6 (0.5%) and S7 (0.2%), except for ME, where the cultivation subsystem decreased to 65% and harvesting increased to 16.5% due to the wasted culture medium. Contrarily to the demonstration-scale, the detailed analysis of the subsystems S2 showed that energy was responsible for about 98% of the impact, except for marine eutrophication (ME) in S1, which is highly \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c|c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Impact 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Per Batch**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Per Lite of**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Carotenoids**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Phycobiliproteins**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & & **MA** & & **EA** & **MA** & **EA** \\ \hline GW & kg CO2 eq & \(105.16\times 10^{3}\) & 1.05 & 0.55 & 0.19 & 0.51 & 0.86 \\ SOD & kg CFC11 eq & \(4.16\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.16\times 10^{-7}\) & \(2.16\times 10^{-7}\) & \(7.55\times 10^{-8}\) & \(2.00\times 10^{-7}\) & \(3.41\times 10^{-7}\) \\ TA & kg SO2 eq & 545.05 & \(5.45\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.83\times 10^{-3}\) & \(9.88\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.62\times 10^{-3}\) & \(4.46\times 10^{-3}\) \\ FE & kg P eq & 37.61 & \(3.76\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.95\times 10^{-4}\) & \(6.82\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.81\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.08\times 10^{-4}\) \\ ME & kg N eq & 3.74 & \(3.75\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.95\times 10^{-5}\) & \(6.80\times 10^{-6}\) & \(1.80\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.07\times 10^{-5}\) \\ TET & kg 1.4-DCB & \(74.47\times 10^{3}\) & 0.74 & 0.39 & 0.14 & 0.36 & 0.61 \\ FET & kg 1.4-DCB & \(1.13\times 10^{3}\) & \(1.13\times 10^{-2}\) & \(5.89\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.06\times 10^{-3}\) & \(5.45\times 10^{-3}\) & \(9.28\times 10^{-3}\) \\ MET & kg 1.4-DCB & \(1.60\times 10^{3}\) & \(1.60\times 10^{-2}\) & \(8.33\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.91\times 10^{-3}\) & \(7.71\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.313\times 10^{-2}\) \\ HCT & kg 1.4-DCB & \(2.40\times 10^{3}\) & \(2.40\times 10^{-2}\) & \(1.25\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.35\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.15\times 10^{-2}\) & \(1.96\times 10^{-2}\) \\ HNCT & kg 1.4-DCB & \(62.83\times 10^{3}\) & 0.63 & 0.33 & 0.11 & 0.30 & 0.51 \\ FRS & kg oil eq & \(29.96\times 10^{3}\) & 0.30 & 0.16 & 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.25 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Impact category: global warming (GW), stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD), terrestrial acidification (TA), freshwater eutrophication (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), terrestrial ecotoxicity (FET), marine ecotoxicity (MET), human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), fossil resource scarcity (FRS).  
\end{table}