Biomass Based Bioenergy: Technologies and Impact on Environmental Sustainability

Article information

J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2022;44(1):1-12
Publication date (electronic) : 2022 January 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.4491/KSEE.2022.44.1.1
1Laboratory of Energy, Environment and Information Systems, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Adrar University, 01000 Adrar, Algeria
2Department of Chemistry & Research Centre, Mohamed Sathak Engineering College, Kilakarai , Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu - 623 806, India
3Institute of Chemistry, Bioscience and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger 4036, Norway
4School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, 03722, South Korea, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author E-mail: Gopalakrishnan.kumar@uis.no Tel: +47-41320821
††Corresponding author E-mail: sanghkim@yonsei.ac.kr Tel: +82-2-2123-2802 Fax: +82-2-364-5300
*

Authors have equal contribution to this work.

Received 2020 September 1; Revised 2021 December 2; Accepted 2021 December 2.

Abstract

Biomass based bioenergy has many advantages evidently as their available quantity and renewability, when compared to the petro-derived traditional fossil fuels. Thereby, such bioenergy occupies a vital role defensively to the global energy requirement as well as guarantee energy supply. On the other hand, it should be considered that the development of biomass based energy may lead to some serious environmental issues and those are only based on the published data. Such adverse environmental alterations, mainly erosion of soil organic carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, lessening of water quantity and quality, have mainly been based on type of biomass source utilized, location of the land, and management practices. Consequently, more attention should be paid towards environmental protection, while implementing the production of biomass based bioenergy. In this study, various types of biomass, its conversion technology, advantages and disadvantages and its environmental issues of bioenergy production in terms of adverse impact on water, air and soil along with protection measures have been discussed.

1. Introduction

By the year 2030, the usage of various biomass resources would raise due to the increased demand of energy. The demand is would be possibly met by increased utilization of the waste biomass residues like starch, sugar, and oil crops, progressively more from lignocellulosic crops, which is based on the picking of crop and planting rates, environmental and logistical constraints, and availability of water resources [1]. The demand or necessities of global energy level increases hurriedly, due to rapid growth and developmental activities of modern industrialization, transportation and domestic activities. Hence, many researchers are working to upgrade novel energy resources alternative to fossil fuels [2]. Furthermore, these resources are derived from inexpensive and easily or nearby available non-food materials. Every year, about 100 billion metric tons (BMTs) of biomass wastes are produced from various agricultural, forestry and industrial resources and these biomass materials could be utilized as promising bioenergy sectors worldwide [3]. The production of biomass wastes (in Mt: million tons), originated from various agricultural sources are rice straw (731 Mt), wheat straw (354 Mt), corn straw (204 Mt), sugarcane bagasse (181 Mt) and rice husk (110 Mt) as well as around 73 Mt of forestry residues (during harvesting and product processing) [4,6]. Traditionally, the biomass and its residues have been widely utilized as significant bioenergy and bioproduct producing resources, around 10~14% of the global energy demands have been fulfilled from biomass supplie [7,8]. Approximately 25% of biomass bioenergy are widely utilized in industries for power generations and remaining 75% is used for household heat generation (cooking and firing) activities. During the photosynthesis process, the green plants (chlorophyll) react with water (in the atmosphere) to produce electrons (e) and protons (H+) and use them to turn CO2 (in the atmosphere) in the presence of solar radiant energy (as a catalyst) into energy rich chemical products (glucose or carbohydrate) and release O2 (as a waste product) as:

Though, the energy producing biomasses have been widely utilized in major of the bioenergy production sectors, an alternative to conventional fossil fuel energy resourced demands behind the coal, crude oil or petroleum and natural gases [8-12], there are certain impacts of biomass based bioenergy production on the water quantity and quality, followed by GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, and erosion of soil organic carbon (SOC). Furthermore, the publications related to energy producing biomasses and their impacts on our environment imply that some awareness should be given towards protection of the environment while supporting the expansion of biomass based bioenergy developement [13]. This review focuses on various types of biomass resources, biomass conversion technologies, advantages and disadvantages of biomass materials and the environmental impact of bioenergy production on water, air and soil and protection measurement.

2. Types of Biomass resources

Generally, biomass sources are organic matter and containing C, H and N / O / S, derived from any type of plants as well as animal species of the biosphere. According to the IEA (International Energy Agency), the biomass and its materials are derived from biogenic sources, mainly animals and plants from wood and agricultural crops, and organic wastes from municipal and agro-industry [14]. The classification of biomass materials has been approached, based on some important facts like their life cycle, origin, fibrous nature, aquatic/terrestrial nature and yield. Based on the origin, the biomass sources are further classified into three types as are illustrated in Table 1 [15]:

Classification of biomass materials according to their origin (Adopted and modified (Refs. [14,15]).

· Organic residues and wastes: include agriculture and forestry residue (e.g. Trees, wood, wood waste, dung, manure, poultry waste), municipal waste (e.g. Food waste, yard clippings, refuse derived fuel, kitchen waste, biosludge) and industrial residues (e.g. Sawdust, timber slash, mill scrap, brewery by-products, oil extraction meal) [11,15-20].

· Lignocellulosic residues: such as switchgrass, miscanthus, alfalfa, Altai wildrye [15].

· Product from agriculture: such as palm oil, jatropha, soybean, mustards, sunflower, coconut [15].

Biomass material resources can be categorized as traditional and new (modern) biomasses, based on the energy sector utilization. Traditional biomasses are used as non-commercial sources (e.g. Food cooking), whereas the new biomasses (e.g. Methane and ethanol generation from biomass) [16,21] are effeicient commercial sources. Moreover, the increasing utilization of biomass source as a promising future bioenergy sector could act as the chief emerging alternative resources to fossil fuel, to reduce the GHGs emission and also foster bioeconomy. During the thermochemical (combustion, co-firing, gasification, hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis) and biological (anaerobic digestion, alcohol fermentation) conversion processes the biomass materials containing, high percentage of O and low percentage of C and H contents have been converted to different form of sustainable energies in he form of solid (biochar) or liquid (bio-oil or biofuel, bioethanol, biodiesel) or gaseous (bio-H2, bio-CH4, bio-syngas) fuels, electric power, heat energy and useful cost-effective high value added bioproducts towards biochemical, biochip, biofertilizer, biopolymer industries [8,22,23].

3. Biomass Conversion to biofuels

The production of bioenergy and biofuels from various biomass materials have been classified, according to the type of biomass materials and their residues utilized [15,20,24,25]. Fuels generated through biomass are classified as first, second, third, fourth generation biofuels.

3.1. First generation (1G) biofuels

First generation (1G) biofuels are generated from different types of food crops (rice, wheat, rapeseed, sorghum, sugarcane, corn). Biodiesel and bioethanol are the primary first generation (1G) biofuels [17]. In 2015, the USA (14.81 billion gallons) and Brazil (7.09 billion gallons) produced around 85% of the global bioethanol [15]. The USA uses corn biomass as a primary source for bioethanol generation, whereas Brazil uses mainly sugar cane [15,17]. In the Europe Union sugar beet and starch crops represent the primary sources of bioethanol production (around 3.44 billion liters) [17].

Biodiesel has been generated from oilseed crops (palm oil, soybean, sunflower, canola) [15,17]. In 2006, the world’s biodiesel generation was reached more than 6 billion liters. The largest biodiesel producer is Germany with 2.5 billion liters, primarily derived from sunflower and rapessed. The second largest producer is the USA, which produces 0.86 billion liters, overall the biodiesel generation has been increased in some countries (France, Austria, Italy) [17].

However, primary biomasses for the first generation biofuels pose a significant issue while the production of biofuels depends on the food crops supplies and their cost.

3.2. Second generation (2G) biofuels

The second generation (2G) biofuels are generated from lignocellulosic biomass (containing 30~50% of cellulose, 15~35% of hemicellulose and 10~20% of lignin) and their residues, derived from the agriculture (straw, corn stover, sugar bagasse, vegetative grasses, wood along with their wastes, energy crops and their residues), forest residues. The production of second generation biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass solves the problem of food competitiveness related to the use mainly of sugar cane and corn as feedstocks for the production of first generation biofuels [15,17].

3.3. Third generation (3G) biofuels

The engineered algae are a rich energy source and is widely utilized for third generation biofuels production either directly or through some conversion process. In addition, algal species have high sugar or lipid or oil contents with a high growth rate as well as it is easily cultivated in lagoons or open ponds, under specific conditions and not at all influence the food production in the land areas [24]. Hence, the production of bioenergy from the algal feedstock is considered as a future energy source and potentially replaces fossil fuel demands.

3.4. Fourth generation (4G) biofuels

Fourth generation biofuels increase the production of biofuels, using some metabolically engineered species (engineered algae, bacteria, some other microbes), combining CO2 capture and energy storage capability. During the production of biofuels, some of the species have high percentage of lipid content, which can be further degraded into high value added bioproducts like polymeric hydrocarbons or petroleum products [24,25].

4. Biomass conversion technologies

During the conversion technologies, the biomass materials or residues are converted into specific bioenergy with high value added bioproducts. Several types of biomass conversion technologies (BCT) have been employed for obtaining bioenergy and bioproducts [17,25-28]. The advantages and disadvantages of the conversion technologies are summarized in Table 2 [25,28].

Various biomass conversion technologies (BCT), process, bioenergy products, advantages and disadvantages (Adopted and modified Refs. [24,27]).

4.1. Thermochemical conversion:

Heating coupled chemical processes are mainly utilized to produce bioenergy from biomass materials. During the thermochemical conversion, the biomass material is treated at high temperature to produce solid (biochar), liquid (high oxygenated bio-oil), and gaseous (syngas) form of bioenergies. The main thermochemical conversion methods are gasification and pyrolysis. In gasification technology, the biomass is converted to syngas containing CO2, CO, H2 and CH4. The gasification process is performed at very high temperature (over 600℃) with lower oxygen content in a gasifier reactor [29]. Syngas are used as stationary biofuels or for ethanol, diesel and ethanol through Fischer-Tropsch conversion [15,25]. Pyrolysis process provides the biomass conversion at an average temperature of about 300~600℃ and in the absence of oxygen to liquid (bio-oil), solid (shar) and gas. The proportions of such products are depending on the feedstock type, heating level and residence time [30].

4.2. Thermal conversion

During thermal process heat (exothermic) energy is utilized for converting biomass into bioenergy, this technology and include direct combustion, co-firing, pyrolysis and torrefaction. Industrially, several types of biomass materials like wood, agricultural residues, wood pulping liquor, MSW, can be burnt or combusted directly to produce heat and generation of electric power (renewable energy source). However, this method it’s not effectively utilized, due to high percentage of ash formation during combustion of most of the biomass materials.

4.3. Biochemical conversion

Enzymes, bacteria or other microbes are used for converting biomass into biofuels, it includes anaerobic digestion and alcohol fermentation. During the fermentation process, the microorganisms interact with sugar based (sugarcane, sweet sorghum) as well as starch based (corn grain) biomasses into recoverable bioproducts (bioethanol). The obtained bioethanol is further used for the production of biopolymers (polyethylene) or blended with gasoline (E15) [25,31]. Anaerobic digestion (AD) process consists the breakdown of biodegradable biomass into biogas by microorganisms at a temperature, ranging between 30 and 65℃, but there is no air [17,32-34], these biogas cam be considered as an alternative to natural gas.

4.4. Microbial electrochemical technologies (METs)

Currently, the main global agenda issues are the energy and freshwater [35]. Waste and wastewater treatment can be an important resource for bioenergy production and environmental pollution removal [36]. Several wastewater technologies are used to provide the energy requirement, such as anaerobic digestion and heat pumps [35]. Newly, microbial electrochemical technologies (METs) have been developed for the energy extraction and producing valuable chemicals from wastewater, using electrically active bacteria (EAB) [37]. METs process provides significant advantages, including power recovery in various forms and less sludge production over the conventional biological treatment technologies [35]. The METs process can be classified to: microbial fuel cell (MFC), microbial desalination cells (MDC) and microbial electrolysis cell (MEC).

4.4.1. Microbial fuel cell (MFC)

The microbial fuel cell (MFC) process allows the transformation of organic matter to bioelectricity through electrochemically active bacteria (EAB) [38]. EAB oxidizes organic matter, causing release of electrons. The MFC includes an anode chamber, a cathode chamber which are separated by an ion exchange membrane (IEM) [39]. In MFC, the releasing electrons and protons are resulting from the organic matter oxidation by EAB at the anode chamber which are passed to the cathode by the external circuit and the IEM, respectively [36,37]. The flow of electrons leads to electricity production [36].

4.4.2. Microbial desalination cell (MDC)

Microbial desalination cell (MDC) is suitable for bioelectric energy generation from the wastewater and simultaneously desalinating seawater [35]. The MDC can be constructed, when an extra chamber is added between the anode and cathode chamber in the MFC [40]. MDC includes an anode chamber, a cathode chamber, an anion exchange membrane (AEM) and cation exchange membrane (CEM) [40]. In MDC, EAB oxidizes organic matter to electrons and protons at the anode [35]. The free electrons are subsequently passed to the cathode by the external circuit [35,40]. The anions (Cl) can be transported to the anode through the AEM and simultaneously the cations (Na+) get transported to the cathode through the CEM, concurrently with the electros transfers [41]. This system allows a simultaneous electricity generation and water desalination without additional any energy sources [35].

4.4.3. Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC)

The microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) provides biohydrogen generation and wastewater treatment [40]. The MEC process configuration are similar to that of MFC, the difference is an external voltage is applied and the cathode are maintained in anaerobic environment [40]. In a MEC, the BAEs present in the anode oxidizes the organic matter to electrons, the released electrons are transferred to the cathode via a separator and are reduced to biohydrogen [41]. Recently, MECs have gained attention extensively among the researchers that obviously represents nearly about 75% publication in this field [42,47].

5. Advantages and disadvantages of biomass materials

With a rapid increase in the productions of biomass based bioenergy and bioproducts as they possess numerous advantages (i) biomass is a direct source of clean energy, (ii) it is an ultimate as well as continual alternative to fossil fuel resources, (iii) the source materials are easily and available in huge amounts and cheaper than fossil fuel materials, (iv) the integrated biorefineries of industrial wastes as well as other feedstocks produce high added value biochemicals, biofuels and biopolymers, (v) low content of S and N (i.e., less emission of SOx and NOx to the environment), (vi) significant calorific values as compared to fossil fuels, (v) does not increase the CO2 emission in the biosphere, it also acts as a carbon-neutral or green house neutral energy resources, i.e., burning or combustion of any biomass material releases carbon (as CO2 or greenhouse gas) to the environment and then CO2 is absorbed for their growth of all the greenish plants (biomass) during their life cycle, as a result, the net balance amount of CO2 emission and its absorption to the atmosphere is maintained as zero or neutral throughout the usage cycle of biomass, (vi) reduces the quantity of waste in landfills [45,47]. However, discharge of immense amount of CO2 gas along with particulates by direct burning of biomass materials have some negative impact of human health and the environment [48,49].

Hence, some of the challenges towards the utilization of biomass material resources and considerations about CO2 emission can be recapitulated as,

· Shortage of clean and green traditional biomasses and land availability for energy producing purposes,

· Identification of novel biomass sources,

· Optimization in the production of bioenergy or biofuel techniques with requirement of minimum energy, maximum transportability, and compliance with handling equipment in power plants.

· The developed bioprocesses permit extraction of numerous phosphorous like nutrients the developed bioprocesses permit extraction of numerous nutrients

· Development on various combinations in conversion or biorefinery processes,

· results in the need to extract numerous high added value byproducts.

6. Impact of Bioenergy Production on the Environment

The impact of biomass bioenergy on the environment has gradually been increased, the term “water quantity and quality” occupied first place (16%), consequently by emissions of GHGs (6%), followed by SOC (5%), in the year of 2017.

6.1. Impact on water

Hoekman et al. [50] and Zhou et al. [51] illustrated that consumption of water by corn biomass and utilization and conversion of the land, mostly from its native form to perennial grasslands like miscanthus and switchgrass. This consumption also considerably and directly affects the hydrological processes, namely ET (evapotranspiration), quantity of water content in soil, surface runoff, total water content, and at a regional scale for the production of the first–generation ethanol biofuel (100 million gal/year). They found consequently that stress in water scales as that crop needs more water during its cultivation when compared to other crops like wheat and soybean, particularly in its joining stage that varies with watershed and harvest rate [52]. Guo et al. [53] proposed that such land transition for energy producing crops, at the watershed scale may cause diminution of water resources. Similarly, in the case of water quality there is a big concern towards nutrients pollution, mainly by nitrate that may be caused by surface runoff and infiltration to groundwater [54]. It may be reduced by following rotational cultivation of corn and soybean [55] and cultivating perennial grasses, which all can effectively reduce nearly 30 ~ 40% of the total nitrogen [53,56]. Qin et al. [57] suggested that it is possible to reduce and balance such issues by selecting and cultivating proper crop species with optimal management like appropriate fertilization, irrigation, and rate of harvesting.

6.2. Impact on air

The land transition to bioenergy feedstock production mainly impacts on the main components of the GHGs such as CO2 and N2O. 58) Harris et al. [59] suggested that the conversion of arable land for cultivating second generation bioenergy crops could lead to a small diminution of CO2 emission to the atmosphere, while native grassland land transition to cultivating the first generation bioenergy crops and short rotation coppice (SRC) demonstrates an increase in emission of CO2. Consequently, some considerations should be given to select appropriate bioenergy crops along with keen management practices to mitigate the emission of CO2. Similarly, Harris et al. [59] also revealed that conversion of the arable land to SRC as well as perennial grasses could reduce the emission N2O also (–0.2 t/ha year). While, the transition of the grassland to SRC, nitrogen manure application and ethanol biofuel production could make a slight increase in N2O emission. Thereby, they concluded that selection of land location can minimize and control the N2O emissions considerably.

6.3. Impact on soil

The quality of the soil has been determined by soil organic carbon (SOC), which is the significant soil index. The SOC only benefits water retention, soil biodiversity, and crop productivity of the soil. While producing biomass based bioenergy, three facts viz. removal of residues, tillage practices, and utilization of land strongly influences the SOC via soil disturbance. Hoekman et al. [50] predicted that there is a direct stimulation in loss of SOC during, harvesting of dead plant residues i.e., removal of residues. It is attributed to an abnormally reduced carbon input, which can be controlled by optimization in removal of residues, addition of nutrient rich fertilizers and biochar [60]. Overall, Li et al. [61] and Pourhashem et al. [62] predicted that such practices not only accumulate the SOC but also the elemental carbons in the form of CO2 of the air, which is due to electronegativity of the organic aggregate. Management of tillage practices for SOC can be simulated using a biogeochemical model, proposed by Drewniak et al. [63] McCalmont et al. [64] have done SOC sequestration to minimize the loss, at the time of transition of arable land to perennial grasses. They emphasized that arable land utilization for Miscanthus can accumulate organic carbons with a sequestration rate of about 0.42~3.8 Mg C/ha year. Further, mitigation of NOx and CH4 could nourish not only the soil carbon sink but also the air quality protection [62].

5. Conclusion

It is to be expected that there might be substantial growth in the production of biomass based energy over the next 20 years. It has been observed that there is a potential tremendous increase towards such production. For instance, by the year 2030 it is estimated that biomass based energy from the waste residues and energy crops in EU may range from 4.4 to 24 EJ. The biomass based bioenergy is an alternative to fossil fuels and provides an essential contributor to the global energy security due to their availability and renewability. This review summarizes various types of biomass, its conversion technology, advantages and disadvantages and environmental impacts of bioenergy production on water, air and soil along with protection measures. Based on the published reports, it is advisable to provide great attention to issues on quantity and quality of water amongst the other influencing terms while producing biomass based bioenergy. Emissions of GHGs and SOC are the other two adverse effects on the environment, which all mainly depend on types of biomass, land sources and optimal management practices. Hence, predicting the apparent areas for cultivation, a suitable type of crops, and management practices, we can favor both the production of biomass based bioenergy and our environment.

Conversion of various biomass materials into bioenergy products and their sustainability aspects (Adopted and modified Ref. [24]).

Notes

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

1. WU Y, Zhao F, Liu S, Wang L, Qiu L, Alexandrov G, Jothiprakash V. Bioenergy production and environmental impacts. Geosci. Lett 5(1):14. 2018;
2. Zou C, Zhao Q, Zhang G, Xiong B. Energy revolution: from a fossil energy era to a new energy era. Nat. Gas. Ind. B 3(1):1–11. 2016;
3. TerraGreen, Global Waste–Solvable Problem as a Renewable Energy Resource, https://medium.com/@support_61820/global -waste-solvable-problem-as-a-renewable-energy-resource-5d8f 05cc1a7d, September(2020).
4. Koutinas A. A, Vlysidis A, Pleissner D, Kopsahelis N, Garcia I. L, Kook os I. K, Papanik olaou S, Kwan T. H, Lin C. S. K. Valorization of industrial waste and by–product streams via fermentation for the production of chemicals and biopolymers. Chem. Soc. Rev 43(8):2587–2627. 2014;
5. Sarkar N, Ghosh S. K, Bannerjee S, Aikat K. Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: an overview. Renewable Energy 37(1):19–27. 2012;
6. Cho E. J, Trinh L. T. P, Song Y, Lee Y. G, Bae H-J. Bioconversion of biomass waste into high value chemicals. Bioresour. Technol 298:122386. 2020;
7. Axelsson L, Franzén M, Ostwald M, Berndes G, Lakshmi G, Ravindranath N. H. Perspective: jatropha cultivation in southern India: assessing farmers’ experiences. Biofuel. Bioprod. Biorefin 6(3):246–256. 2012;
8. Ahmed A, Bakar M. S. A, Hamdani R, Park Y-K, Lam S. S, Sukri R. S, Hussain M, Majeed K, Phusuntif N, Jamil F, Aslam M. Valorization of underutilized waste biomass from invasive species to produce biochar for energy and other value–added applications. Environ. Res 186:109596. 2020;
9. Ahmed A, Bakar M. S. A, Azad A. K, Sukri R. S, Mahlia T. M. I. Potential thermochemical conversion of bioenergy from Acacia species in brunei darussalam: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82(3):3060–3076. 2018;
10. Mamvura T. A, Danha G. Biomass torrefaction as an emerging technology to aid in energy production. Heliyon 6(3):e03531. 2020;
11. Opia A. C, Hamid M. K. B. A, Syahrullail S, Abd Rahim A. B, Johnson C. A. N. Biomass as a potential source of sustainable fuel, chemical and tribological materials – overview. Mater. Today: Proc 39(2):922–928. 2021;
12. Mao G, Huang N, Chen L, Wang H. Research on biomass energy and environment from the past to the future: a bibliometric analysis. Sci. Total Environ 635:1081–1090. 2018;
13. US EIA. International energy outlook 2011, US Energy information administration Washington, D.C.: U.S.; 2011.
14. IEA. Technology roadmap: delivering sustainable bioenergy. International Energy Agency, Paris, France 2017;
15. Ahorsu R, Medina F. M. Constanti. Energies 11(12):3366. 2018;
16. Hohenstein W. G, Wright L. L. Biomass energy production in the United States: an overview. Biomass Bioenergy 6(3):161–173. 1994;
17. Cherubini F. The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for producing energy and chemicals. Energy Convers. Manag 51(7):1412–1421. 2010;
18. Rawat K. S. Biomass to fuel: conversion Techniques, Energy resources: development, harvesting and management. In : Nautiyal O. P, Sharma B, Pant D, eds. USERC. Uttrakhand, India: p. 155–194. 2016.
19. IEA. Bioenergy project development and biomass supply. In : Sims R. E. H, ed. International Energy Agency. Paris, France: p. 1–66. 2007.
20. Rosendahl L. Biomass resources, fuel preparation and utilization for improving the fuel flexibility of advanced power plants, Advanced power plant materials, design and technology. In : Roddy D, ed. Woodhead Publishing. Sawston, U.K.: p. 312–331. 2010.
21. Goldemberg J, Coelho S. T. Renewable energy—traditional biomass vs. modern biomass. Energy Policy 32(6):711–714. 2004;
22. Awasthi M. K, Sarsaiya S, Patel A, Juneja A, Singh R. P, Yan B, Awasthi S. K, Jain A, Liu T, Duan Y, Pandey A, Zhang Z, Taherzadeh M. J. Refining biomass residues for sustainable energy and bio-products: An assessment of technology, its importance, and strategic applications in circular bio-economy. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 127:109876. 2020;
23. Isikgor F. H, Becer C. R. Lignocellulosic biomass: a sustainable platform for the production of bio–based chemicals and polymers. Polym. Chem 6(25):4497–4559. 2015;
24. Cambero C, Sowlati T, Pavel M. Economic and life cycle environmental optimization of forest-based biorefinery supply chains for bioenergy and biofuel production. Chem. Eng. Res. Des 107:218–235. 2016;
25. Lan K, Park S, Yao Y. Key issue, challenges, and status quo of models for biofuel supply chain design, Biofuels for a more sustainable future. In : Ren J, Scipioni A, Manzardo A, Liang H, eds. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 273–315. 2020.
26. An H, Wilhelm W. E, Searcy S. W. A mathematical model to design a lignocellulosic biofuel supply chain system with a case study based on a region in Central Texas. Bioresour Technol 102(17):7860–7870. 2011;
27. Patel M, Zhang X, Kumar A. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 53:1486–1499. 2016;
28. Tareen W. U. K, Dilbar M. T, Farhan M, Nawaz M. A, Durrani A. W, Memon K. A, Mekhilef S, Seyedmahmoudian M, Horan B, Amir M, Aamir M. Present status and potential of biomass energy in pakistan based on existing and future renewable resources. Sustainability 12(1):249. 2020;
29. Shahbaz M, Al-Ansari T, Inayat M, Sulaiman S. A, Parthasarathy P, McKay G. A critical review on the influence of process parameters in catalytic co-gasification: current performance and challenges for a future prospectus. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 134:110382. 2020;
30. Pang S. Advances in thermochemical conversion of woody biomass to energy, fuels and chemicals. Biotechnol. Adv 37(4):589–597. 2019;
31. Mohsenzadeh A, Zamani A, Taherzadeh M. J. Bioethylene production from ethanol: a review and techno-economical evaluation. ChemBioEng Rev 4(2):75–91. 2017;
32. Sharma B, Ingalls R. G, Jones C. L, Khanchi A. Biomass supply chain design and analysis: basis, overview, modeling, challenges, and future. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 24:608–627. 2013;
33. Zhang C, Su H, Baeyens J, Tan T. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 38:383–392. 2014;
34. Sawatdeenarunat C, Surendra K. C, Takara D, Oechsner H, Khanal S. K. Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol 178:178–186. 2015;
35. Savla N, Pandit S, Khanna N, Mathuriya A. S, Jung S. P. Microbially Powered Electrochemical Systems Coupled with Membrane–based Technology for Sustainable Desalination and Efficient Wastewater Treatment. J. Korean Soc. Env. Eng 42(7):360–380. 2020;
36. Pandit S, Savla N, Jung S. P. Recent advancements in scaling up microbial fuel cells, Integrated microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment. In : Abbassi R, Yadav A. K, Khan F, Garaniya V, eds. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 349–368. 2020.
37. Lee T, Okamoto A, Jung S, Ryuhei N, Kim J. R, Watanabe K, Hashimoto K. Microbial electrochemical technologies producing electricity and valuable chemicals from biodegradation of waste organic matters, Manual of environmental microbiology. In : Yates M. V, Nakatsu C. H, Miller R. V, Pillai S. D, eds. ASM Press. Washington, DC, USA: p. 5.1.4–1-5.1.4-14. 2015.
38. Jung S. P, Pandi S. Important factors influencing microbial fuel cell performance, Microbial electrochemical technology. In : Mohan S. V, Varjani S, Pandey A, eds. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 377–406. 2019.
39. Reddy M. V, Sun X. Bioelectrosynthesis of Various Chemicals and Evaluation of Their Microbiological Aspects, Microbial electrochemical technology. In : Mohan S. V, Varjani S, Pandey A, eds. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 757–776. 2019.
40. Zhang T, Tremblay P. L. Possible industrial applications for microbial electrosynthesis from carbon dioxide, Microbial electrochemical technology. In : Mohan S. V, Varjani S, Pandey A, eds. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 825–842. 2019.
41. Varanasi J. L, Veerubhotla R, Pandit S, Das D. Biohydrogen production using microbial electrolysis cell: recent advances and future prospects, Microbial electrochemical technology. In : Mohan S. V, Varjani S, Pandey A, eds. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 843–869. 2019.
42. Stolarski M. J, Krzyżaniak M, Warmiński K, Olba-Ziety E, Penni D, Bordiean A. Energy efficiency indices for lignocellulosic biomass production: short rotation coppices versus grasses and other herbaceous crops. Ind. Crops Prod 135:10–20. 2019;
43. Islam M. K, Wang H, Rehman S, Hsu C. Dong. H-Y, Lin C. S. K, Leu S-Y. Sustainability metrics of pretreatment processes in a waste derived lignocellulosic biorefinery. Bioresour. Technol 298:122558. 2020;
44. Bajpai P. Energy-related environmental issues, Biomass to Energy Conversion Technologies. In : Bajpai P, ed. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands: p. 205–216. 2020.
45. Effendi A. J, Hidayat S, Ramadan B. S, Purnawan C, Park J-Y. Performance of Microbial Reverse – Electrodialysis Cells for Power Generation at Different External Resistance, Air. Soil Water Res 13:1–8. 2020;
46. Kang H, Kim E, Jung S. P. Influence of flowrates to a reverse electro–dialysis (RED) stack on performance and electrochemistry of a microbial reverse electrodialysis cell (MRC). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42(45):27685–27692. 2017;
47. Santoro C, Arbizzani C, Erable B, Ieropoulos I. Microbial fuel cells: from fundamentals to applications. a review. J. Power Sources 356:225–244. 2017;
48. Alatzas S, Moustakas K, Malamis D, Vakalis S. Biomass potential from agricultural waste for energetic utilization in Greece. Energies 12(6):1095. 2019;
49. Kim S, Tsang Y. F, Kwon E. E, Lin K-Y. A, Lee J. Recently developed methods to enhance stability of heterogeneous catalysts for conversion of biomass–derived feedstocks. Korean J. Chem. Eng 36(1):1–11. 2019;
50. Hoekman S. K, Broch A, Liu X. V. Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: a literature review. part I–impacts on water, soil, and air quality. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 81:3140–3158. 2018;
51. Zhou X. V, Clark C. D, Nair S. S, Hawkins S. A, Lambert D. M. Environmental and economic analysis of using SWAT to simulate the effects of switchgrass production on water quality in an impaired watershed. Agric. Water Manag 160:1–13. 2015;
52. Cibin R, Trybula E, Chaubey I, Brouder S. M, Volenec J. J. Watershed–scale impacts of bioenergy crops on hydrology and water quality using improved SWAT model. GCB Bioenergy 8(4):837–848. 2016;
53. Guo T, Cibin R, Chaubey I, Gitau M, Arnold J. G, Srinivasan R, Kiniry J. R, Engel B. A. Evaluation of bioenergy crop growth and the impacts of bioenergy crops on streamflow, tile drain flow and nutrient losses in an extensively tile–drained watershed using SWAT. Sci. Total Environ 613:724–735. 2018;
54. U.S. EPA. Biofuels and the Environment: First Triennial Report to Congress (Final Report, 2011), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/600/R-10/183F; 2011;
55. Wu M, Zhang Z, Chiu Y. Life–cycle water quantity and water quality implications of biofuels. Curr. Sustainable/ Renewable Energy Rep 1(1):3–10. 2014;
56. Chen Y, Ale S, Rajan N, Srinivasan R. Modeling the effects of land use change from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to perennial bioenergy grasses on watershed hydrology and water quality under changing climate. Agric. Water Manag 192:198–208. 2017;
57. Qin Z, Zhuang Q, Cai X, He Y, Huang Y, Jiang D, Liug E. Lin Y, Tang Y, Wang M. Q. Biomass and biofuels in China: toward bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on the environment. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82:2387–2400. 2018;
58. Qin Z, Dunn J. B, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander M. M. Influence of spatially dependent. GCB Bioenergy 8(6):1136–1149. 2016;
59. Harris Z. M, Spake R, Taylor G. Land use change to bioenergy: a meta–analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 82:27–39. 2015;
60. Wu Y, Liu S, Young C. J, Dahal D, Sohl T. S, Davis B. Projection of corn production and stover–harvesting impacts on soil organic carbon dynamics in the US Temperate Prairies. Sci. Rep 5:10830. 2015;
61. Li W, Dang Q, Brown R. C, Laird D, Wright M. M. economic and environmental performance of the pyrolysis–bioenergy –biochar platform to carbon negative energy. Bioresour. Technol 241:959–968. 2017;
62. Pourhashem G, Rasool Q. Z, Zhang R, Medlock K. B, Cohan D. S, Masiello C. A. Valuing the air quality effects of biochar reductions on soil NO emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol 51(17):9856–9863. 2017;
63. Drewniak B. A, Mishra U, Song J, Prell J, Kotamarthi V. R. Modeling the impact of agricultural land use and management on US carbon budgets. Biogeosciences 12(7):2119–2129. 2015;
64. McCalmont J. P, Hastings A, McNamara N. P, Richter G. M, Robson P, Donnison I. S, Clifton-Brown J. Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. GCB Bioenergy 9(3):489–507. 2017;

Article information Continued

Table 1.

Classification of biomass materials according to their origin (Adopted and modified (Refs. [14,15]).

Biomass category Biomass materials
Agriculture Sugar Sugarcane, corn, sweet sorghum
Starch Mazie or Corn, cassava, sweet potato
Oil seed crops Rapeseed, palm oil, jatropha, soybean, mustards, sunflower, coconut
Lignocellulosic plants short rotation coppice Tropical grasses Poplar, sycamore, switchgrass, Miscanthus, alfalfa, Altai wildrye, sweet clover
Organic residues and wastes Industrial residues and waste Straw, bagasses, husks, shells, wood shaving, sawdust, fiber sludge, brewery by-products, oil extraction meal, cross-cut ends, plywood by-products
Agriculture and forestry residue Stumps, whole tree, bark, shrubs, slabs, logging by-products, dung, manure, poultry waste
Municipal waste Slaughterhouse byproducts, kitchen waste, biosludge

Table 2.

Various biomass conversion technologies (BCT), process, bioenergy products, advantages and disadvantages (Adopted and modified Refs. [24,27]).

Conversion technologies Processes Bioenergy products Advantages Disadvantages
Thermal conversion method Combustion Heat / steam ∙ Biomass can be co–fired with existing fossil fuel power stations. ∙ Specific temperature and control system is needed.
Co–firing or Oil and biochar
Co–combustion Biocoal ∙ Use to operate the steam turbine to produce electricity. ∙ Emission of hazardous gases is expected.
Pyrolysis
Torrefaction ∙ Can be operated at optimum temperature range.
Chemical conversion method Direct conversion Biodiesel ∙ Advanced biofuels can be obtained ∙ Energy input for agriculture and feed stock production reduced.
∙ Large scale conversion operations required.
Thermo–chemical conversion method Pyrolysis Synthesis gas ∙ Cheap, easy to transport and easy to store. ∙ Heat is required to produce a synthesis gas.
Carbonization Jet fuel ∙ Large quantity of charcoal and associated products can be produced. ∙ High investment cost is required.
Gasification Diesel ∙ Less processing required to produce marketable products. ∙ Technical problems are so far limited.
Hydrothermal conversion ∙ High quality products of greater energy density can be produced.
Catalytic liquefaction
Biochemical conversion method Anaerobic digestion Transport fuels ∙ Applicable in microbial engineering. ∙ Health threat to people and livestock
Gas energy ∙ Less potent to GHG in the atmosphere.
Fermentation Renewable chemicals ∙ Make use of the energy in the gas.
∙ Reduce the volume of sludge to be disposed for facilitating proper disposal.
∙ Economically competitive in the medium term.

Table 3.

Conversion of various biomass materials into bioenergy products and their sustainability aspects (Adopted and modified Ref. [24]).

Biomass materials Bioenergy products Country Objective or Sustainability aspectsa
Economic Environmental Social
Biomass waste and residues Bioethanol Iran Min. annual cost
Sugarcane and eucalyptus Bioethanol Brazil Min. total production cost
Corn Bioethanol China Min. life cycle cost
Castor oil Biodiesel Brazil Min. investment cost and min. logistical cost
Corn stover Drop-in fuel United States Min. total production cost
Biomass Biodiesel United States Max. total profit
Cellulosic biomass and municipal solid waste (MSW) Bioethanol United States Min. total cost
Switchgrass Bioethanol United States Min. annual cost
Crop residues, energy crops and wood residues Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel United States Min. annual cost
Miscanthus Bioethanol United States Min. annual cost
Crop residues, energy crops and wood residues Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel United States Min. unit cost
Switchgrass Bioethanol United States Max. the SC profit
Wheat, wheat straw and miscanthus Bioethanol United Kingdom Min. the SC cost
Forestry biomass Biooil United States Max. expected SC profit
Corn stover and wood residues Biodiesel United States Min. the biofuel cost
Vegetable oil Biodiesel Greece Max. the total value
Crop, forestry biomass, animal fats, waste grease and MSW Biooil United States Max. SC profit
Forestry biomass Biooil United States Min. SC cost
Crop residue Bioethanol United States Max. NPV
Corn Bioethanol Italy Max. NPV
Biomass Bioethanol United States Min. the SC cost
Miscanthus Bioethanol United States Min. annual production
Switchgrass Biobutanol United States Max. NPV
Woody biomass Biodiesel United States Min. the SC cost
Energy crop Bioethanol United States Min. SC cost
Animal waste Syngas / Bio-H2 Finland Max. SC profit
Biowastes, sludges, agricultural residues and energy crops Biogas United States Min. total distance
Animal waste, corn stover and forest residues Natural gas, gasoline and diesel United States Max. profit
Sugarcane bagasses Bioethanol Mexico Max. profit Min. eco–points Max. job creations
Wood residues Biooil and pellets Canada Max. NPV Max. GHG saving Max. job creations
Wheat, wheat straw and miscanthus Bioethanol Canada Min. total daily cost Min. GHG
Crop residues, energy crop and wood residues Gasoline and diesel United Kingdom Min. annual cost Min GHG
Crop residues, energy crop and wood residues Bioethanol United States Min. annual cost Man life cycle GHG Max. accrued jobs
Woody biomass Austria Max. profit Min. CO2 emission
Woody biomass Biooil United States Max. 20 year profit Min. GHG
Palm oil Biodiesel Colombia Min SC cost Min. GHG
Corn grain and corn stover Bioethanol Italy Max NPV Min. water footprints / Min. GHG
Corn grain and corn stover Bioethanol Italy Min. SC cost Min GHG
Woody biomass, sugarcane, corn grain, sorghum grain, sweet sorghum, African palm, jatropha, safflower Bioethanol, biodiesel, butanol and xylitol Mexico Max. SC profit Min. eco–points Max. job creations
Woody biomass, sugarcane, corn grain, sorghum grain, sweet sorghum, African palm, jatropha, safflower Bioethanol and biodiesel Mexico Max. SC profit Min. eco–points Max. job creations
Sugarcane Bioethanol Max. NPV Min. Eco–indicator 99 / GWP100
Animal manure and energy crop Biogas Turkey Max. SC profit Min. weighted unused waste biomass
Lignocellulosic biomass Bioethanol Iran Min. Eco–indicator 99 Max. job creations
Waste cooking oil Biodiesel China Max. profit Max. carbon emission allowance Max. social responsibility
Corn and cellulosic biomass Bioethanol United States Min. total system cost
Biomass Gasoline United States Max. annual profit
Corn stover and forest residues Bioethanol United States Min. expected total system cost
Biomass Bioethanol Iran Max. biorefinery profit
Agricultural residues, energy crops and wood residues Hydrocarbon fuels United States Min. annual cost
Lignocellulosic biomass, forest residues and MSW Bioethanol United States Min. expected SC cost
Corn grains and corn residues Gasoline United States Max. annual profit
Corn Bioethanol United States Max. SC profit
Corn Gasoline and diesel United States Max. SC profit
Sugarcane Bioethanol United States Max. total net profit
Forest residues Bioil United States Max. annual profit
Biomass Bioethanol United States Min. SC profit
Animal waste Syngas / Hydrogen United States Max. SC profit
Corn stover and forest residues Bioethanol Central European Min. in the SC cost
Corn, corn stover, wood chips, MSW, manure and timber Bioethanol United States Max. SC profit Min. environmental footprints Max. social footprints
a

SC: Supply chain; NPV: Net precent value; GHG: Green house gas; Min.: Minimum; Max.: Maximum.