## 1 Introduction
They mention that the different economic and environmental criteria that were used to compare the collection technologies are generally not specified or described in the patents analyzed. Economic and environmental benefits are only occasionally mentioned in patent applications, but are generally not discussed in detail. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the technological potential of a patented system based on the criteria defined in the scientific literature. Finally, according to the literature review, they conclude that auto-flocculation and co-flocculation, as well as sedimentation, generally obtained the best score in the economic and environmental criteria, while the belt filters obtained the highest score in the technological criteria, however, they do not mention what the costs of harvesting biomass are. [PERSON] et al. [41] performed a quantitative techno-economic analysis of different large-scale harvesting and dewatering systems with a focus on processing cost, energy consumption, and resource recovery. The economic evaluation shows that operating costs and energy consumption are in the range of 60.5-2/kg of algae and 0.2-5 kWh/kg of algae, respectively, for dilute solutions from open culture systems. Harvesting and dewatering of flocculated dilute systems results in the least energy requirement. However, due to the chemicals required and the loss of flocculants, these systems end up at the same cost level as mechanical harvesting systems. For closed culture systems, operating costs decrease to 60.1-0.6/kg algae and energy consumption to 0.1-0.7 kWh/kg algae. They also determine that if the amount of biomass fed to the harvest stage is increased, it is possible to reduce production costs considerably. [PERSON] et al. [42] analyzed several process scenarios for production of microalgae biomass derived by combining two cultivation technologies and 11 harvesting technologies with and without the use of drying. The results of their study present the total energy demand for the production of algal biomass for the different cases considered. Energy requirements were shown to be highly dependent on final mass concentration, with thermal drying being the largest energy consumer. Their results show that the energy consumption for the biomass production routes that consider the cultivation in PBR and obtain dry biomass range from 4500 kWh/1000 kg of biomass produced up to 8200 kWh/1000 kg of biomass, approximately. They conclude that the scenarios that used open ponds for cultivation, followed by sedimentation and filtration through membranes, were the most efficient from the energy point of view. Some authors evaluate specific scenarios for the production of microalgae biomass. [PERSON] et al. [43] report biomass production costs of US $9540/ton of biomass if it is grown in tubular PBR and US $419/ton of biomass if it is grown in Flat plate. [PERSON] et al. [24] report wet biomass production costs of $4.15/kg if the cultivation in PBR is considered and $5.96/kg if the biomass cultivation is carried out in Flat plate. The different production and economic criteria used in similar studies make it difficult to compare the various production scenarios. In addition, many investigations do not mention if the production scenarios analyzed can be adapted to more than one microalgae strain or what will be the use of the biomass produced. The comparison and evaluation of various technologies involved in different stages of the process provides a great variety of scenarios, showing techno-economic potential of microalgae production. Each scenario could have different purposes, since in most cases the technology used depends on final utilization of biomass. A study with these characteristics would allow us to analyze and compare various technological options for obtaining microalgae biomass that can have various purposes of use, depending on technological scenario.