Biobutanol As A Potential Sustainable Biofuel - Assessment of Lignocellulosic and Waste-Based Feedstocks

Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water Year 2013
and Environment Systems Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 58‐77
Biobutanol as a Potential Sustainable Biofuel - Assessment of

Lignocellulosic and Waste-based Feedstocks
Johanna Niemistö*1, Paula Saavalainen1, Eva Pongrácz2, Riitta L. Keiski1

1
Department of Process and Environmental Engineering,
P.O. Box 4300, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
2
Thule Institute, NorTech Oulu, P.O. Box 7300, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
email:[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This paper introduces the production process of an alternative transportation biofuel,
biobutanol. European legislation concerning biofuels and their sustainability criteria are
also briefly described. The need to develop methods to ensure more sustainable and
efficient biofuel production processes is recommended. In addition, the assessment
method to evaluate the sustainability of biofuels is considered and sustainability
assessment of selected feedstocks for biobutanol production is performed. The benefits
and potential of using lignocellulosic and waste materials as feedstocks in the biobutanol
production process are also discussed. Sustainability assessment in this paper includes
cultivation, harvest/collection and upstream processing (pretreatment) of feedstocks,
comparing four main biomass sources: food crops, non-food crops, food industry
by-product and wood-based biomass. It can be concluded that the highest sustainable
potential in Finland is when biobutanol production is integrated into pulp & paper mills.
KEYWORDS
Biofuels, Biobutanol, Lignocellulosics, Waste, Biomass, Sustainability assessment,
Renewable Energy Directive (RED)
INTRODUCTION
Governmental policies have been the main promoters of biofuels during the last decade.
For example, the European Union has settled targets for biofuel and energy usage in the
member countries. Promotion of renewable energy was started with the Directive
2001/77/EC and continued with the biofuel sector by the Directive 2003/30/EC. Later on,
the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) 2009/28/EC [1] was introduced, including the aim
of 10% biofuels share in transport sector by 2020. The use of biofuels has a target of
minimum reduction of 35% (increasing to 50% by 2017 and 60% by 2018 for new
installations for biofuel production) in GHG emissions compared to fossil fuels. In addition
to EU, also many other countries have their own targets and legislation for biofuels [2].
Bioethanol and biodiesel are now the most used biofuels in the transportation sector, but
also new alternatives such as biobutanol are needed to fulfill the demands. Moreover, it is
important that biofuels are produced in as sustainable a way as possible. This article focuses
on biobutanol as a potential renewable-based transportation fuel. In particular, production
based on non-food feedstocks such as lignocellulosic materials and wastes/by-products is
considered and sustainability assessment is performed to evaluate different feedstocks. The
hypothesis is that lignocellulosic and waste-based biobutanol is a sustainable transportation
*
Corresponding author.
Page 58
fuel. Finally, the sustainability of four different biobutanol feedstock materials is assessed,
and the challenges associated with the evaluation of sustainability in biobutanol production
are addressed.
BIOBUTANOL –An alternative transportation fuel

Butanol (C4H9OH) is an intermediate in the production of butyl acrylates, the ingredient
of coatings and adhesives, as well as glycol ethers and butyl acetates [3]. Butanol is also
commonly used as a solvent in the production of antibiotics, hormones and vitamins [4].
Production is typically done by the chemical Oxo process, where propylene is reacting with
carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst, followed by the hydrogenation
of formed aldehydes to a mixture of iso- and n-butanols [3]. Biobutanol can also be
produced from biomass materials biochemically via a fermentation process. The
fermentation process for biobutanol production was already introduced in the 1910s [5] and
used in an industrial scale until many plants were closed during the 1960s due to the
inability to compete with chemical production processes [6]. During the last decade, interest
in the process has arisen again due to the considerable potential of biobutanol as a
transportation fuel. While ethanol is a commonly used fuel additive, the properties of
butanol are comparable to gasoline and in many ways superior to ethanol (Table 1).
Table 1. Fuel properties of biobutanol and advances compared to ethanol [7–9]

Property Advances compared to ethanol
Blending ability Can be blended with gasoline or diesel fuel in higher
concentrations without the need of vehicle retrofitting.
With higher concentrations also the share of renewable
components is increased in the final fuel mixture.
Energy content, octane Values are closer to gasoline than ethanol: better fuel
values and air-to-fuel ratio economy (kilometers per liter) than with ethanol.
Less evaporative Safer to use and handle than ethanol and generates lower
amounts of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.
Lower water Compared to ethanol, decreased tendency of corrosion in
solubility pipelines and fuel tanks, and if spills or leaks happen, the
tendency for spreading in the groundwater is reduced.
Lower vapor Compared to ethanol, decreased tendency of corrosion in
pressure pipelines and fuel tanks.
Biodegradability Butanol is more biodegradable than ethanol and will
biodegrade in the environment under aerobic conditions.
Several reviews on biobutanol production have been published recently [6, 10–12] and
there is a number of active biobutanol production plants in China [13]. In addition,
companies such as DuPont, British Petroleum, Cobalt Technologies and Gevo Inc. are
investigating biobutanol production and aiming to initiate industrial scale production. In
terms of sustainability, the key concern is the feedstock of biobutanol production. The
selection of feedstock will also impact on the production process. The assessment presented
in this paper considers the biochemical production route of butanol and six different
categories of feedstock sources.
Page 59
Biochemical production process of biobutanol

The main steps with alternative processing techniques of the biobutanol production
process are illustrated in Fig. 1. As the cost of raw material has a significant influence on
price [14], the main interest has recently been in low-cost substrates such as agricultural
residues or industrial by-products and waste materials. Upstream processing before the
fermentation includes the pretreatment of feedstock biomass, hydrolysis, and in some cases
detoxification of inhibitors formed during the pretreatment. The fermentation step is
commonly called as Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol (ABE) fermentation, based on the main
products. This anaerobic fermentation consists of two stages: first the acidogenic phase
where Clostridial bacteria produce acetic and butyric acids, carbon dioxide (CO2) and
hydrogen (H2) from sugars, followed by the solventogenic phase where acids are converted
into acetone, butanol and ethanol, typically in the ratio of 3:6:1. After the fermentation, final
products are recovered and purified in downstream processing [15]. Adsorption, gas
stripping, liquid-liquid extraction, pervaporation, perstraction and reverse osmosis are the
most used separation methods integrated with the ABE fermentation [16].
Figure 1. Steps in the biobutanol production process (modified from [10])
The main shortcoming of this biochemical production pathway is the low yield of the
fermentation process, caused mainly by butanol inhibiting the growth and metabolism of
Clostridia. Thus, there is a need to find improvements for the fermentation process.
Research has been done e.g. by modifying the bacterium strains to stand out inhibitors better,
by enhanced fermentation techniques, and by combining the downstream part into the
fermentation step and removing butanol continuously from the system [11]. Novel
feedstocks and optimized production processes for utilization of the raw materials are also
essential development areas for more sustainable and efficient production of butanol. In this
paper, the focus is especially on the selection of different feedstocks and their influence on
the sustainability for the process.
Feedstocks for biobutanol production

Biobutanol can be produced biochemically from a range of feedstocks. When selecting
the raw material for an industrial scale process, plentiful supply, low price, reasonable
Page 60
transportation costs and the ease of feedstock bioconversion should be taken into
consideration. Molasses, potato, corn and other starch materials as well as cassava have
been the principal raw materials used in industrial scale production of biobutanol [6].
Despite the fact that fossil fuel based chemical production process of butanol took over the
fermentation process, research and development of biochemical process continued during
the 1980s and 1990s, and new raw materials were tested. Interest in the process arose again
in the beginning of the 21st century, focusing mainly on non-food residues and wastes. Use
of by-products and waste materials is desirable also in terms of resource efficiency and
waste minimization. Table 2 illustrates the advantages of different biobutanol feedstocks.
Table 2. Feedstocks used for biobutanol fermentation process

Feedstock Examples Advantages Disadvantages Ref.
source
Agricultural Bagasse, Easier upstream
Seasonal availability, [17–
residues or by- corn processing to
Variations in cultivation 25]
products stover/fiber/cobs, fermentable sugars
yield and quality,
straws (e.g. from Land-use change,
barley, rice or wheat) Transport costs (low
density)
Crop biomass Cassava, Easier upstream Edible, [26–
corn processing to Seasonal availability, 28]
fermentable sugars Variations in yield
and quality,
Land-use change,
Water need for irrigation
Non-food crop Switchgrass, Does not compete Land-use change [29,
biomass Jerusalem artichoke with food use possible if fertile land is 30]
used,
Potential water need
Wood-based Wood hydrolysates Non-food biomass, More difficult upstream [18,
biomass (e.g. from aspen, Good availability, processing, 31–
pine, beech or Lower transport Indirect land-use change 34]
hemlock) costs possible
Industrial Apple pomace, cheese Better social Availability and [35–
by-products whey, Distillers Dry acceptance by means quality of the raw 50]
Grain Solids (DDGS), of resource use material may vary,
potato waste, brans efficiency and waste Additional processing
(e.g. from rice or minimization may be needed to
wheat), soy molasses, No land-use change separate the feedstock
waste sulfite liquor from the main product
Biodegradable Food and garden Better social (Seasonal) and [51–
municipal waste, starch-based acceptance qualitative variation 55]
waste packing peanuts, contributes to
sludge from resource efficiency
wastewater and waste
treatment minimization,
No land-use change
Page 61
LEGISLATIVE CONSTRAINTS OF BIOFUEL SUSTAINABILITY IN THE

EUROPEAN UNION
The Fuel Quality Directive (2009/30/EC) of the European Union (EU) sets minimum
limits for the quality of transportation biofuels while the Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) (2009/28/EC) includes three relevant articles in respect to sustainability:
Sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids (Article 17), Verification and compliance
with the sustainability criteria (Article 18) and Calculations of the greenhouse gas impact of
biofuels and bioliquids (Article 19). Articles are described briefly below [1, 56]:
Article 17 sets sustainability criteria (both qualitative and quantitative) for all biofuels
produced either inside or outside the European Union. These include for example
feedstocks and indirect land use: Areas with high stocks of carbon, highly biodiverse
grassland, peatlands, primary forests and protected areas are not allowed to be used. The
European Commission (EC) should report to the European Parliament and the Council
every second year about the measures taken to follow the sustainability criteria and the
protection of soil, water and air when producing biofuels in the Member States or in third
countries. There are no compulsory criteria for economic and social sustainability for
Member States, but the EC should also report the impact of the biofuel policy on the
availability of foodstuff at affordable prices, and respect of land-use rights and wider
development issues. This concerns in particular the situation with people living in
developing countries. Information of ratification and implementation of given Conventions
of the International Labour Organisation within the main producer countries should also be
included in the report.
Based on Article 18, economic operators (e.g. farmers, biofuel producers, distributors
and vendors) of each Member State need to show that given sustainability criteria are
followed. GHG impact calculation is done by using a mass balance system allowing mixing
of biofuels or raw materials with varying sustainability characteristics. Operators are
required also to arrange sufficient standards for independent auditing of the information. If
raw materials or biofuels are imported, bilateral or multilateral agreements including
guarantee of the compliance with the sustainability criteria also within the third world
countries should be sought. The EC can demand a producer to give a demonstration that
biofuel produced from raw materials cultivated in non-EU countries comply with
sustainability criteria.
Article 19 includes the methodology for calculations of GHG emissions and gives
default values for 22 biofuel production pathways. These values are valid only when
cultivation of raw materials does not cause change in land use. The cultivation should also
take place outside the EU or in the EU area which is classified as level 2 or more
disaggregated level in the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS). In these
areas, the typical GHG emissions from cultivation are expected to be equal or lower than
emissions reported in the list of “Disaggregated default values for cultivation” in part D of
the Annex V.
Biofuel standards
The EC is not demanding but encouraging industry, governments and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to set up voluntary certification schemes for
biofuels. The Certification guarantees that biofuels produced under the certified label are
sustainable and production is done according to criteria given in RED. [57]
At present, the following European Sustainability criteria for the production of biofuels
and bioliquids for energy applications - Principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers - EN
16214 standards have already been approved and published; Part 1: Terminology, Part 3:
Biodiversity and environmental aspects related to nature protection purposes and Part 4:
Page 62
Calculation methods of the greenhouse gas emission balance using a life cycle analysis
approach. Further, approval of Technical report prCEN/TR 16214-5, Part 5: Guidance to
the conformity assessment and the use of the chain of custody and mass balance will be
voted on summer 2013. FprEN 16214-2 Standard proposal Part 2: Conformity assessment
including chain of custody and mass balance is not yet approved and will go to another
voting. [58]
There is also an international standard draft ISO/CD 13065 ‘Sustainability criteria for
bioenergy’ under preparation, but most probably it will be available only after few years
[59]. So at the moment, all standards made by CEN Technical Committee (TC) 383:
Sustainability produced biomass for energy applications are not yet approved. It seems also
that at least the standard parts approved at the moment include neither GHG emission and
fossil fuel balances, biodiversity, environmental, economic and social aspects nor indirect
effects.
EVALUATION OF BIOBUTANOL PRODUCTION PROCESSES
Evaluation of feedstocks and unit processes

There are only a few assessments of biobutanol production available in the literature
and most of them evaluate only economic sustainability. In 1980, Lenz & Morelra [60]
found that high-quality molasses was an unattractive alternative at that time, whereas
liquid whey waste material was found to have better economic potential. Gapes [61]
concluded in 2000 that Acetone-Butanol fermentation may be economic when cheap,
low-grade substrates are processed on a relatively small industrial scale. In contrast,
when Pfromm et al. [62] compared the technical and economic aspects of fermentative
biobutanol and bioethanol production processes using corn and switchgrass, they
concluded the ABE process to be disadvantageous at the level of technology in 2010. The
reason quoted was the low yield and productivity per time and volume of fermenter and
the lower heating value per gram of processed biomass, as compared to bioethanol
production by yeast fermentation. Recently, Kumar et al. [63] compared cellulosic
(bagasse, barley straw, wheat straw, and switchgrass) and non-cellulosic (glucose,
sugarcane, corn, and sago) feedstocks. Sago and glucose were too costly as feedstock
biomass, while sugar cane and cellulosic materials were economically feasible with
production costs of 0.59–0.75 $/kg of butanol. Further, fermenter size, plant capacity and
production yield were noticed as crucial design and process parameters. In 2004, Ramey
& Yang [64] reported production costs of 1.07 $/gallon (0.33 $/kg) for their process
starting from corn and cost of 0.54 $/gallon (0.17 $/kg) for whey permeate used as a
feedstock. With the current butanol price in Europe, about 1.50 $/kg, the biochemical
production can be feasible already in this stage of the art. As comparison, production
costs for petroleum-based butanol are about 1.35$/gallon (0.44 $/kg) [65]. However, the
process is using propylene as starting material and thereby production costs of the
chemical process are very sensitive to the crude oil price.
Different recovery methods have been evaluated together with the economics of the
butanol production process [16,66–70]. For instance, pervaporation (a membrane-based
separation technique) may reduce production costs, especially if combined with the
fermenter as a hybrid process [6,71,72]. Recently, conceptual designs of alternative process
routes for biobutanol production from sugarcane molasses were done using Aspen Plus and
Aspen Icarus modeling tools [73]. Different fermentation modes (batch or fed-batch),
bacterium strains (Clostridium acetobutylicum ATCC824 or PCSIR-10, Clostridium
beijerinckii BA101) and downstream processing techniques (steam stripping distillation,
liquid-liquid extraction or gas stripping with CO2) were investigated. Fed-batch
Page 63
fermentation with gas stripping was evaluated to be the only viable design in present
economic conditions in South Africa, but the technology is still unproven on the industrial
scale.
Production pathway analysis (GHG emissions)

Natural Resources Canada has developed a model called GHGenius for the estimation
of life cycle energy balances and emissions of the primary GHGs and of many other
contaminants in connection with the production and use of existing and potential
transportation fuels. Emissions can be predicted for the past, present and the future as far as
2050. This model was used for the analysis of the corn-to-butanol pathway [74]. Another
calculation model, GREET (the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use
in Transportation), was developed by Argonne National Laboratory. This well-to-wheels
(WTW) analysis tool is based on the evaluation of different vehicle-fuel combinations on
the basis of full fuel-cycle or vehicle-cycle. The model consists of Microsoft Excel
multidimensional spreadsheets and calculates the consumption of energy, emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other pollutants, i.e. volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides
(SOx) as well as particulate matter measuring 10 micrometers or less (PM10) or 2.5
micrometers or less (PM2.5) [75]. Using the GREET model and the Aspen Plus simulation
tool, Wu et al. [76] estimated the potential life-cycle energy and emissions effects
associated with the use of biobutanol. They concluded that vehicles fueled with biobutanol
produced by the examined process could result in fossil energy savings of 39–56%, and
reduction of 32–48% of GHG emissions compared to conventional gasoline.
Recently, Swana et al. [77] evaluated the net energy production and feedstock
availability for transportation biofuels by life-cycle assessment. Studied feedstocks
included switchgrass, hybrid poplar, corn stover and wheat straw, all assumed to be
produced domestically for biofuel production in the US. They concluded that by sustainable
harvest based on current yields in the US, these biomasses can be converted to 8.27 billion
gallon (31.31 billion liters) of biobutanol vs. 10.31 billion gallons (39.03 billion liters) of
bioethanol. Since butanol has a better energy density, the replaced amount of gasoline is
higher: 7.55 vs. 6.97 billion gallons with ethanol. It is to be mentioned that, with 2010
consumption levels of 378 million gallons/day, this is sufficient for merely 20 days of
automotive transport without efficiency measures to reduce the fuel consumption.
Ultimately, it will be crucial to restrain present consumption levels.
Directives do not specify the standard conversion values or the input numbers used to
obtain the default values for each economic operator’s calculations. To harmonize the GHG
calculation system for biofuel emissions, specialists from several EU countries have been
united within the BioGrace project during 2010–2012 [78]. They listed all standard
conversion values needed for GHG emission calculations and provided an Excel-based
software for performing the calculations. Development and implementation of the software
was done together with governmental policy makers, economic operators, auditors, advisors
and certifiers. In addition, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) [79] is an
international intent to bring together players from all fields for ensuring the sustainability of
the production and processing of biofuels. This initiative has also developed a third-party
certification system.
Page 64
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FEEDSTOCKS FOR BIOBUTANOL

PRODUCTION
Sustainable development is the cornerstone of environmental policy and a leading
principle for resource management. Sustainability can be envisioned as an equilibrium state
between economic success, social acceptance and environmental protection. [80] In
industrial applications, sustainability is often summarised as the “triple bottom line” success
covering the three components of sustainability - environmental responsibility, economic
return (wealth creation), and social development [81]. However, there is no standard
method for measuring the triple bottom line success, and it is especially difficult to assess
processes in the early design phase to have the understanding of the full impact of design
changes.
Economic, environmental and social impacts of biofuel production

In terms of economic impact, the price of feedstock and the costs of biofuel production
are the most defining impacts. The cost of biofuel production can be calculated mainly
based on the capital and operational costs of the process. According to Demirbas [82],
operational costs (e.g. feedstock, chemicals, labor, maintenance, insurances, taxes)
represent about one third of the total cost per liter of fuel, while the share of capital costs is
about one-sixth of the total cost per liter. There may be great variations in the production
costs of the chosen raw materials, process techniques, and the scale, capacity and location of
the plant. In debates about the positive effects of renewable and bioenergy projects, the
aspect of generating regional added value is discussed [83, 84]. Heck [83] suggests regional
added value to be defined as “the sum of all additional values originating in a region in a
given time period”. Further, “particularly social, ethical and environmental issues should be
considered in addition to the purely monetary aspects such as cost reduction, increase of
purchasing power, higher tax revenues, and retention and generation of jobs” [83].
Environmental impacts in relation to biofuel feedstocks include direct and indirect
land-use changes (LUC and ILUC), water footprint and other natural distraction. LUC and
ILUC can have significant impacts on greenhouse gas balances and eutrophication [85–87].
The risks of nutrients removal, soil erosion and water run-off, as well as loss of natural biota,
habitats and wildlife also have to be considered [88]. The expected positive impacts by
using biomass based raw materials are reduced need of fossil fuels, potential GHG savings
and improved carbon economy [82]. In addition, the biofuel production process has direct
environmental impacts in terms of energy consumption and waste generation. In our
assessment, we have evaluated the different challenges which each feedstock presents in
terms of energy and water consumption during its pre-processing as well as the amounts of
wastes/by-products they entail. Special attention is given to the use of toxics in
pre-processing, as it will also impact on the safety of employees.
Regarding social impacts, biofuels in general are credited with enhanced energy security
due to reduced dependency on imported crude oil, as well as increased employment. In our
assessment of different biomass feedstock, providing jobs and development of rural areas
are considered as positive impacts, especially in the case of raw materials from the
agricultural and forest sectors. A key element in comparing different feedstocks is
competing demand of feedstock, especially in the case of food-based feedstocks. For this
reason, the ethical considerations are also assessed. This will also impact on customer
acceptance, which may be subjective and is a theme of actual social dialogue. Some of the
feedstocks assessed are currently still under research as potential raw material of biobutanol
production. In terms of wider societal impact, the innovation and knowledge potential
Page 65
research efforts also need to be considered. As well, education and training for new
processes will positively impact on societal capital.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Assessment process for the selected feedstocks

To understand the combined impacts of feedstock supply and the production process, all
three aspects of sustainability should be taken into consideration simultaneously. Currently,
there is no unified triple bottom line assessment method available. In addition, while
economic and environmental impacts can be quantified, most social impact categories can
only be described in qualitative terms. In order to provide comparable data, we used a
methodology described in Saavalainen et al. [89] in the assessment. A numerical value
between +2 and -2 was assigned to all impact categories, illustrating the level of influence;
positive impact was valued by a positive amount up to +2, depending on the potency of
positive influence. For negative impacts the values were negative, with -2 for the most
severe impact. In the case that the selected feedstock had no influence towards either
direction, the value of 0 was assigned. This method allows for the comparison of all impact
categories at the same time and visualizing with a spider diagram.
As a boundary condition for this sustainability study, it was assumed that the biobutanol
is produced in a western European country, Finland if feasible. The assessment is limited to
cultivation, harvest/collection and upstream processing (pretreatment) of feedstocks,
excluding the rest of the process chain. Four main biomass sources were compared: food
crops represented by corn, non-food crops illustrated by straw, food industry by-product
with whey permeate as an example and sawdust as a representative of wood-based biomass.
The assumptions for all four feedstocks used in the assessment are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Assumptions made for the feedstocks

Corn Whey permeate
- crop biomass - food industry by-product
- is imported - could be used as fodder or as raw material
- could be used as food for nutrient additives/products
- starch/sugar (glucose) content ~71% - sugar (lactose) content ~ 50%
- in cultivation, lot of water as well as - biobutanol production facility is integrated
fertilizers and pesticides are required with a food industrial factory
- pretreatment is done by wet milling with
sulphuric acid
Straw Sawdust
- non-edible crop biomass or agricultural - wood based biomass
waste - is an industrial by-product that would
- sugar (cellulose and hemicellulose) content otherwise be used in energy production
~70% - sugar (cellulose and hemicellulose) content
- contains also ashes and extractives which ~70%
make processing more complicated - biobutanol production facility is integrated
with a paper and pulp factory
- steam from pulp and paper factory can be
utilized in pretreatment step
Page 66
RESULTS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

The following indicators of the selected feedstock were assessed: Feedstock price,
processing costs, and value added for economic impact; environmental impacts were
evaluated for water consumption, toxic material usage, biodiversity and land use impacts,
amount of wastes vs. by-products generated and energy consumption. For social impact
assessment, the ethics of the feedstock use was evaluated based on competing demand;
current customer acceptance and social dialog were considered, the employment effects of
feedstock use were evaluated and finally, the innovation, knowledge and education
potential were estimated. Table 4 lists the values given for the indicators. In addition, results
are illustrated in Fig. 2 as a spider diagram.
Processing costs of lignocellulosics are higher due the more complicated structure of the
biomass and more demanding sugar extraction. Therefore, the feedstock cost of corn is the
highest [63]. In contrast to crop biomasses, cultivation, harvesting and transportation costs
are not formed during the usage of industrial by-products.
Biodiversity and land use impacts are negative when using crops that need to be
cultivated, and more severe for edible crops. Because industrial by-products would be
formed even without their utilization in biobutanol production, they are assumed to have no
impact on biodiversity and land use. Hazardous and toxic material usage is the highest in
corn production, because of fertilizer and pesticide usage. Water is required the most in crop
biomass cultivation. Water is required also in hydrolysis of lignocellulosics, while the whey
permeate pretreatment is not water intensive. Non-edible crop biomass consumes the most
energy compared to other feedstocks. This is primarily due to transportation. The energy
and water demand for the hydrolysis of lignocellulosics (straw and sawdust) is similar.
Table 4. Sustainability indicator values

Corn Straw Whey Sawdust
permeate
Economic indicators
Feedstock price -2 -1 0 0
Processing costs -1 -2 -1 -1.5
Value added 0.5 2 1 1.5
Environmental indicators
Water consumption -2 -1 0 -0.5
Hazardous and toxic material usage -2 -1 0 -1.5
Biodiversity and land use -2 -1 0 0
Wastes vs. by-products 1.5 -0.5 -1 1
Energy -1 -2 -0.5 0
Social indicators
Ethicality and competing demand -2 0 -0.5 0
Customer acceptance and social dialog -2 0.5 1 1
Employment effects 0.5 2 1 1
Innovation and education potential 0 2 1 2
Page 67
Figure 2. Sustainability assessment of selected feedstocks for biobutanol production
Biodiversity and land use impacts are negative when using crops that need to be
cultivated, and more severe for edible crops. Because industrial by-products would be
formed even without their utilization in biobutanol production, they are assumed to have no
impact on biodiversity and land use. Hazardous and toxic material usage is the highest in
corn production, because of fertilizer and pesticide usage. Water is required the most in crop
biomass cultivation. Water is required also in hydrolysis of lignocellulosics, while the whey
permeate pretreatment is not water intensive. Non-edible crop biomass consumes the most
energy comparing with other feedstocks. This is primarily due to transportation. The energy
and water demand for the hydrolysis of lignocellulosics (straw and sawdust) is similar.
However, since the sawdust-based process is in symbiosis with a pulp and paper mill, the
plant’s residual steam can be utilized. Considering that the by-product of corn processing is
valuable, a positive value is given. Since the starch content of corn is high, the yield of the
biobutanol is high as well. However, pretreatment requites sulphuric acid, and use of
process residue is not possible without neutralization.
Ethically, the use of non-edible crop or wood-based biomass is the most acceptable as
the competing use of these feedstocks is minimal compared to edible crops and food
industry by-products. Customer acceptance and social dialog are especially positive in
Finland in terms of wood-based feedstocks. Employment effects are the most positive for
agricultural by-products, as they require more resources for collection and pretreatment.
Employment effects are positive also to corn as it is a widely used raw material, but it is
assumed that it is not going to create a lot of new jobs in the near future. The innovation and
education potential is the highest for lignocellulosics, as it is currently under intense study.
Table 5 summarizes the main benefits and key negative impacts of assessed feedstocks.
Based on this assessment, it can be concluded that the highest positive sustainability
impact is that of wood-based feedstock, with non-edible agricultural crops being second
best. The challenge of both feedstocks is in the processing technology. However, these
challenges can be overcome through research, which will further improve innovation and
knowledge potential. The key challenge of any food-based feedstock is competing demand,
even in case of food industry by-products. Another significant challenge is the need for
arable land and water for cultivation which, in some countries, can be a challenge even in
case of non-food crops. In Finland, both wood-based feedstock and non-food crops can be
Page 68
viable, yet the consumer acceptability and social dialogue supporting the use of wood-based
feedstock is somewhat higher. The higher employment potential of agricultural biomass
will raise its feedstock cost, and also increase the value added. Overall, in Finland, the
highest potential is in integrating lignocellulosic-based biofuel technology with for example
pulp& paper plants, which can take advantage of the supply chain of the industrial plant,
utilize by-products and waste heat in symbiosis and thus contribute to the lowest combined
environmental impacts with the highest collective social benefits.
Table 5. Summary of sustainability impacts of selected feedstocks

Feedstock Benefits driving sustainability Challenges to sustainability
Crop biomass (corn) - Processing wastes are of - Competing demand for food
value creates ethical challenges
- Minor impacts to - Consumer acceptance low
employment and value - High demand for water and
added arable land
- High cost of feedstock and
toxics use in pre-processing
- No significant innovation
potential
Non-edible crops (straw) - Highest employment and - High processing costs and
innovation potential energy demand
- Highest value added - Water intensive
- No ethical conflicts, pre-processing using toxics
consumer acceptability
mostly positive
Food by-product (whey) - Innovation and employment - Costly processing

potential - Lowest product-to-waste ratio
- Positive value added - Potential competing demand
- High consumer acceptability
- Relatively low energy and
water demand in processing
- No toxics used
Wood-based (sawdust) - High innovation potential - Highest pre-processing costs
and value added - Toxics used in pre-processing
- Positive employment
impacts
- Highest consumer
acceptability
- By-product of marketable
value
Challenges in assuring sustainability of biofuels

The first challenge in the process and product evaluation is defining system boundaries,
the accurate description of all process steps and selecting relevant and measurable indicators
for the evaluation. In many cases, it is demanding to find sufficient and reliable information
on all process steps and, thereby, some assumptions or simplifications are required. The
production processes for biofuels as well as their direct and indirect environmental and
social impacts are very complex and, if evaluation is not based on the same definitions and
boundaries for the process, the evaluations are not comparable.
Page 69
When a sustainability assessment is done in a research and design phase, the target is to
drive innovation for sustainability. This would require decision-support tools for the
sustainability innovation process. With such tools, it would be possible to affect the
environmental performance at the early design phase. It would, undoubtedly, provide a
competitive advantage to the company if the consumption of energy, material, and water, as
well as the emissions to air and water and waste releases of new products and processes
would be known in advance. To gain information on all the above mentioned indicators is
very important in the phase of adjusting the value-chain management. In the case of process
development of biofuel production, legislative requirements such as the RED Directive will
also have to be taken into consideration. It has been pointed out that the RED methodology
excludes many critical issues such as indirect land use impacts and does not adequately
consider allocation problems and uncertainty of individual parameters [90]. Evidently, there
is a need to define common criteria for sustainability for biofuels. It is expected that the
standards defined by technical committee of CEN/TC 383 will provide a solution to this
problem and it would offer tools to be used also in the early design phase.
Meanwhile, mandatory blending targets, tax exemptions and subsidies have been set to
increase the production and use of biofuels, although the EC is regulating the use of tax
exemptions and incentives in Member States in order to avoid overcompensation. Increased
oil prices will probably make production and use of biofuels more attractive in the future,
but it is yet unclear how much and for how long a time will government support be needed
before the biofuel economy can become profitable for industry and consumers. [2]
CONCLUSIONS
Both environmental and political pressures require increased biofuel production in the
future. When choosing biofuels for the transportation sector, sustainability aspects in both
the production processes and in the use of biofuels need to be taken into account. In addition,
it is important to ensure that the evaluation base for sustainability, including emission
calculations, is comparable and relevant.
In this article, biobutanol has been discussed as a potential future transportation biofuel.
The advantage of biobutanol is its superior environmental and fuel properties, when
compared to more commonly used biofuels such as ethanol. The economic competitiveness
of biobutanol production depends on many aspects such as feedstock cost, product yield in
fermentation including the separation and purification steps of biobutanol and the recovery
of by-products. The process can be enhanced e.g. by exploiting the potential of low-cost
feedstocks, using modified bacterium strains to gain better product yields and by finding
more energy-efficient processing techniques. Use of raw materials classified as wastes or
by-products, as well as utilization of all process outputs is also vital. The challenge with the
waste material usage is in its heterogeneous nature. The research to increase the efficiency
of the fermentation process should take this challenge into account. Also the yield of
butanol should be increased dramatically, to ensure the capability of up-scaling the process
to industrial scale. Apart from resource efficiency, sustainable process design also considers
the economic, environmental and social impacts caused by the upstream and downstream
processes.
There are many ongoing attempts (such as BioGrace, The Roundtable on Sustainable
Biofuels, and development of calculation tools such as GREET) for measuring and
reporting the sustainability aspects of the biofuel value chain. Most of them focus on
controlling land use impacts and GHG emissions. There is still a demand for defining
common criteria, definitions and assessment principles for evaluating sustainability. Finally,
in order to have comparable results of sustainability assessment, the indicators and
evaluation methods should be clearly stated and harmonized. These indicators should
Page 70
highlight and include the value of biofuels from waste products and take into account the
avoidance of land-use change and emissions. In this paper sustainability assessment
included selection of most important environmental, economic and social indicators. These
were used to compare certain feedstocks for biobutanol production. Whilst corn is the most
used feedstock for biofuel processing, it seems that other feedstocks have several
advantages in perspective of numerous social and environmental aspects. Our assessment
concluded that, in a Finnish perspective, the highest potential for sustainably is if biobutanol
production was integrated into pulp & paper mills for example. Whilst in a European
context even non-food feedstocks and agricultural by-products have their own challenges,
due to the vast natural resources of Finland, the use of non-food crops could be a viable
alternative. A key element pointed out was that, when evaluating sustainability, the
assessment cannot consider the manufacturing process in isolation from the surrounding
society. Employment effects and regional value-added impacts provide strong consumer
acceptance and will further contribute to the increase of social capital.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Academy of Finland (project no. 124510, New, innovative sustainable
transportation fuels for mobile applications: from biocomponents to flexible liquid fuels),
The Doctoral Program in Energy Efficiency and Systems, and The Finnish Funding Agency
for Technology and Innovation (research project no: 1428/31/2009, Intensification of
bioprocess chains) are acknowledged for the financial support of this work.
REFERENCES
1. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European parliament and the council on the promotion of
the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing
Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, 23.4.2009, 2009.
2. Sorda, G., Banse, M., Kemfert, C., An overview of biofuel policies across the world,
Energy Policy, Vol. 38, pp 6977-6988, 2010.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.066)
3. Burridge, E., Chemical profile: N-butanol:
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2009/03/09/9198054/chemical-profile-n-butanol.html
[Accessed Jan 31, 2013], 2009. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bit.22003 PMid:18727018)
4. Lee, S.Y., Park, J.H., Jang, S.H., Nielsen, L.K., Kim, J., Jung, K.S., Fermentative
butanol production by clostridia, Biotechnol. Bioeng., Vol. 101, pp 209-228, 2008.
5. Gabriel, C.L., Butanol fermentation process, Ind Eng Chem, Vol 20, pp 1063-1067,
1928. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie50226a020)
6. García, V., Päkkilä, J., Ojamo, H., Muurinen, E., Keiski, R.L., Challenges in
biobutanol production: How to improve the efficiency?, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev.,
Vol.15, pp 964-980, 2011. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.008)
7. Cascone, R., Biobutanol – a replacement for bioethanol?, Chem. Eng. Prog., Vol. 104,
pp S4–S9, 2008.
8. Wu, M., Wang, M., Liu, J., Huo, H., Life-cycle assessment of corn-based butanol as a
potential transportation fuel. Report of Energy Systems Division, Argonne National
Laboratory: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/448.pdf, 2007.
9. Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels, Biobutanol. A more advanced biofuel:
http://www.butamax.com/_assets/pdf/biobutanol_a_more_advanced_biofuel.pdf,
2009.
Page 71
10. Niemistö, J., Saavalainen, P., Isomäki, R., Kolli, T., Huuhtanen, M., Keiski, R.L.,
Biobutanol production from biomass. In: Gupta, V. K., Tuohy, M.G. (Eds.), Biofuel
Technologies-Recent Developments, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 443-470,
2013. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34519-7_17)
11. Kumar, M., Gayen, K., Developments in biobutanol production: New insights, Appl.
Energy, Vol. 88, pp 1999-2012, 2011.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.055)
12. Ezeji, T., Milne, C., Price, N.D., Blaschek, H.P., Achievements and perspectives to
overcome the poor solvent resistance in acetone and butanol-producing
microorganisms, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 85, pp 1697-1712, 2010.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2390-0 PMid:20033401 )
13. Ni, Y., Sun, Z., Recent progress on industrial fermentative production of
acetone-butanol-ethanol by Clostridium acetobutylicum in China, Vol. 83, pp 415-423,
2009. (PMid:19430776)
14. Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H.P., Economics of butanol fermentation using hyper-butanol
producing Clostridium beijerinckii BA101, Food. Bioprod. Process., Vol. 78, pp
139-144, 2000. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/096030800532888)
15. Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H.P., Butanol production from agricultural biomass, In:
Shetty, K., Pometto, A., Paliyath, G., Levin, R.E., (Eds.), Food Biotechnology, Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press (Taylor&Francis), pp 525-551, 2005.
16. Groot, W.J., Van der Lans, R.G.J.M., Luyben, K.C.A.M., Technologies for butanol
recovery integrated with fermentations, Process Biochem., Vol. 27, pp 61-75, 1992.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0032-9592(92)80012-R)
17. Soni, B.K., Das, K., Ghose, T.K., Bioconversion of agro-wastes into acetone
butanol, Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 4, pp 19-22,1982.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00139276)
18. Parekh, S.R., Parekh, R.S., Wayman, M., Ethanol and butanol production by
fermentation of enzymatically saccharified SO2-prehydrolysed lignocellulosics,
Enzyme Microb. Tech., Vol. 10, pp 660-668. 1988.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-0229(88)90057-9)
19. Qureshi, N., Li, X.-L., Hughes, S., Saha, B.C., Cotta, M.A., Butanol production from
corn fiber xylan using Clostridium acetobutylicum, Biotechnol. Progr., Vol. 22, pp
673-680, 2006. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bp050360w PMid:16739948)
20. Qureshi, N., Ezeji, T.C., Ebener, J., Dien, B.S., Cotta, M.A., Blaschek, H.P., Butanol
production by Clostridium beijerinckii. Part I: Use of acid and enzyme hydrolyzed
corn fiber, Bioresource Technol., Vol. 99, pp 5915-5922, 2008.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.09.087 PMid:18061440)
21. Marchal, R., Ropars, M., Pourquié, J., Fayolle, F., Vandecasteele, J.P., Large-scale
enzymatic hydrolysis of agricultural lignocellulosic biomass. Part 2: Conversion into
acetone-butanol, Bioresource Technol., Vol. 42, pp 205-217, 1992.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(92)90024-R)
22. Qureshi, N., Saha, B.C., Dien, B., Hector, R.E., Cotta, M.A., Production of butanol
(a biofuel) from agricultural residues: Part I – Use of barley straw hydrolysate,
Biomass Bioenerg., Vol. 34, pp 559-565, 2010.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.12.024)
23. Marchal, R., Rebeller, M., Vandecasteele, J.P., Direct bioconversion of
alkali-pretreated straw using simultaneous enzymatic hydrolysis and acetone butanol
production, Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 6, pp 523-528, 1984.
Page 72
24. Qureshi, N., Saha, B.C., Hector, R.E., Hughes, S.R., Cotta, M.A., Butanol
production from wheat straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
using Clostridium beijerinckii: Part I –Batch fermentation, Biomass Bioenerg., Vol.
32, pp 168-175, 2008. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.07.004)
25. Qureshi, N., Saha, B.C., Cotta, M.A., Butanol production from wheat straw by
simultaneous saccharification and fermentation using Clostridium beijerinckii: Part
II - fed-batch fermentation, Biomass Bioenerg., Vol. 32, pp 176-183, 2008.
26. Thang, V.H., Kanda, K., Kobayashi, G., Production of Acetone–Butanol–Ethanol
(ABE) in Direct Fermentation of Cassava by Clostridium
saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1-4, Appl. Biochem. Biotech., Vol. 161, pp 157-170,
2010. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12010-009-8770-1 PMid:19771401)
27. Campos, E.J., Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H.P., Production of acetone butanol ethanol
from degermed corn using Clostridium beijerinckii BA101, Appl. Biochem. Biotech.,
Vol. 98-100, pp 553-561, 2002. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:98-100:1-9:553)
28. Ezeji, T., Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H.P., Production of acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE)
in a continuous flow bioreactor using degermed corn and Clostridium beijerinckii,
Process Biochem., Vol. 42, pp 34-39, 2007.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.07.020)
29. Qureshi, N., Saha, B.C., Hector, R.E., Dien, B., Hughes, S., Liu, S., Iten, L.,
Bowman, M.J., Sarath, G., Cotta, M.A., Production of butanol (a biofuel) from
agricultural residues: Part II – Use of corn stover and switchgrass hydrolysates,
30. Marchal, R., Blanchet, D., Vandecasteele J.P., Industrial optimization of
acetone-butanol fermentation: a study of the utilization of Jerusalem artichokes,
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 23, pp 92-98, 1985.
31. Saddler, J.N., Yu, E.K.C., Mes-Hartree, M., Levitin, N., Brownell, H.H., Utilization
of enzymatically hydrolyzed wood hemicelluloses by microorganisms for
production of liquid fuels, Appl. Environ. Microb., Vol. 45, pp 153-160, 1983.
(PMid:16346161 PMCid:242246)
32. Yu, E.K.C., Deschatelets, L., Saddler, J.N., The Bioconversion of wood
hydrolyzates to butanol and butanediol, Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 6, pp 327-332, 1984.
33. Sjolander, N.O., Langlykke, A.F., Peterson, W.H., Butyl alcohol fermentation of
wood sugar, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 30, pp 1251-1255,1938.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie50347a011)
34. Maddox, I.S., Murray, A.E., Production of n-butanol by fermentation of wood
hydrolysate, Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 5, pp 175-178, 1983.
35. Voget, C.E., Mignone, C.F., Ertola, R.J., Butanol production from apple pomace,
Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 7, pp. 43-46, 1985. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01032418)
36. Ennis, B.M., Maddox, I.S., Production of solvents (ABE Fermentation) from whey
permeate by continuous fermentation in a membrane bioreactor. Bioprocess Eng.,
Vol. 4, pp 27-34, 1989. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00612667)
37. Maddox, I.S., Qureshi, N., Gutierrez, N.A., (1993) Utilization of Whey by Clostridia
and Process Technology, In: Woods, D.R., (Ed.), The Clostridia and Biotechnology,
pp 343-369. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1993.
Page 73
38. Qureshi, N., Maddox, I.S., Reduction in butanol inhibition by perstraction:

Utilization of concentrated lactose/whey permeate by Clostridium acetobutylicum to
enhance butanol fermentation economics, Food Bioprod. Process., Vol. 83, pp
43-52, 2005. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/fbp.04163)
39. Schoutens, G.H., Nieuwenhuizen, M.C.H., Kossen, N.W.F., Butanol from whey
ultrafiltrate: batch experiments with Clostridium beyerinckii LMD 27.6, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 19, pp 203-206, 1984.
40. Welsh, F.W., Veliky, I.A., Production of acetone-butanol from acid whey,
Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 6, pp 61-64, 1984. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00128231)
41. Ezeji, T., Blaschek, H.P., Fermentation of dried distillers’ grains and solubles
(DDGS) hydrolysates to solvents and value-added products by solventogenic
clostridia, Bioresource Technol., Vol. 99, pp 5232-5242, 2008.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.09.032 PMid:17967532)
42. Badr, H.R., Toledo, R., Hamdy, M.K., Continous acetone-ethanol-butanol
fermentation by immobilized cells of Clostridium acetobutylicum, Biomass
Bioenerg., Vol. 20, pp 119-132, 2001.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00068-4)
43. Grobben, N.C., Eggink, G., Cuperus, F.P., Huizing, H.J., Production of acetone,
butanol and ethanol (ABE) from potato wastes; fermentation with integrated
membrane extraction, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 39, pp 494-498, 1993.
44. Gutierrez, N.A., Maddox, I. S., Schuster, K.C., Swoboda, H., Gapes, J. R., Strain
comparison and medium preparation for the acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE)
fermentation process using a substrate of potato, Bioresource Technol., Vol. 66, pp
263-265, 1998. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00051-0)
45. Nimcevic, D., Schuster, M., Gapes, J.R., Solvent production by Clostridium
beijerinckii NRRL B592 growing on different potato media, Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol., Vol. 50, pp 426-428, 1998. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002530051315
PMid:9830093)
46. Lee, J., Seo, E., Kweon, D.-H., Park, K., Jin, Y.-S., Fermentation of rice bran and
defatted rice bran for butanol production using Clostridium beijerinckii NCIMB
8052, J. Microbiol. Biotech., Vol. 19, pp 482-490, 2009.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.4014/jmb.0804.275 PMid:19494696)
47. Al-Shorgani, N.K.N., Kalil, M.S., Yussof, W.M.W., Biobutanol production from
rice bran and de-oiled rice bran by Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1-4,
Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng., Vol. 35, pp 817-826, 2012.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00449-011-0664-2 PMid:22147105)
48. Qureshi, N., Lolas, A., Blaschek, H.P., Soy molasses as fermentation substrate for
production of butanol using Clostridium beijerinckii BA101, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biot.,
Vol. 26, pp 290-295, 2001. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jim.7000131
PMid:11494105)
49. Wiley, A.J., Johnson, M.J., McCoy, E., Peterson, W.H., Acetone-butyl alcohol
fermentation of waste sulfite liquor, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 33, pp 606-610, 1941.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie50377a013)
50. Liu, Z., Ying, Y., Li, F., Ma, C., Xu, P., Butanol production by Clostridium
beijerinckii ATCC 55025 from wheat bran, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biot., Vol. 37, pp
495-501, 2010. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10295-010-0695-8
PMid:20393827)
Page 74
51. Murty, M.V.S., Chandra, T.S., Fermentability of hemicelluloses extracted from

municipal waste and commercial xylans by Clostridium sp, Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol., Vol. 47, pp 212-217, 1997. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002530050915)
52. Claassen, P.A.M., Budde, M.A.W., López-Contreras, A.M., Acetone, butanol and
ethanol production from domestic organic waste by solventogenic clostridia, J. Mol.
Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 2, pp 39-44, 2000. (PMid:10937486)
53. López-Contreras, A.M., Claassen, P.A.M., Mooibrock, H., De Vos, W.M.,
Utilisation of saccharides in extruded domestic organic waste by Clostridium
acetobutylicum ATCC 824 for production of acetone, butanol and ethanol, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 54, pp 162-167, 2000.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002530000374 PMid:10968627)
54. Jesse, T.W., Ezeji, T.C., Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H.P., Production of butanol from
starch-based waste packing peanuts and agricultural waste. J. Ind. Microbiol.
Biotechnol., Vol. 29, pp 117-123, 2002. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jim.7000285
PMid:12242632)
55. Kobayashi, G., Eto, K., Tashiro, Y., Okubo, K., Sonomoto, K., Ishizaki, A.,
Utilization of excess sludge by Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol fermentation employing
Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1-4 (ATCC 13564), J. Biosci. Bioeng.,
Vol. 99, pp 517-519, 2005. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1263/jbb.99.517 PMid:16233826)
56. BioGrace project, The renewable energy directive - information page:
http://www.biograce.net/content/biofuelrelatedpolicies/renewable%20energy%20dire
ctive, [Accessed Feb 8, 2013], 2011.
57. Europa press release, Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels,
Memo IP/10/711: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/711
[Accessed Feb 8, 2013], 2010.
58. CEN – European Committee for Standardization, Sustainably produced biomass for
energy applications – Standards under development:
http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCom
mittees/Pages/default.aspx?param=648007&title=Sustainably%20produced%20biom
ass%20for%20energy%20applications [Accessed Feb 18, 2013].
59. International Organization for Standardization, Sustainability criteria for bioenergy:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=13&i
cs2=20&ics3=99&csnumber=52528 [Accessed Feb 18, 2013].
60. Lenz, T.G., Morelra, A.R., Economic evaluation of the Acetone-Butanol Fermentation,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev., Vol. 19, pp 478-483, 1980.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/i360076a002)
61. Gapes, J.R., The economics of acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation: Theoretical and
market considerations, J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Vol. 2, pp 27-32, 2000.
(PMid:10937484)
62. Pfromm, P.H., Amanor-Boadu, V., Nelson, R., Vadlani, P., Madl, R., Bio-butanol vs.
bio-ethanol: A technical and economic assessment for corn and switchgrass fermented
by yeast or Clostridium acetobutylicum, Biomass Bioen., Vol. 34, pp 515-524, 2010.
63. Kumar, M., Gouyal, Y., Sarkar, A., Gayen, K., Comparative economic assessment of
ABE fermentation based on cellulosic and non-cellulosic feedstocks, Appl. Energ.,
Vol. 93, pp 193-204, 2012. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.079)
64. Ramey, D., Yang, S.-T., Final report, Production of butyric acid and butanol from
biomass: www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/843183.pdf, 2004.
65. Ethanol Producer Magazine, Industry reacts to BP, DuPont butanol announcement.
Ethanol Producer Magazine:
Page 75
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/2274/industry-reacts-to-bp-dupont-butano
l-announcement, September 2006 [Accessed Apr 9, 2013].
66. Marlatt, J.A., Datta, R., Acetone-butanol fermentation process development and
economic evaluation, Biotechnol. Prog., Vol. 2, pp 23-28, 1986.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.5420020106 PMid:20568182)
67. Dadgar, A., Foutch, G., Improving the acetone-butanol fermentation process with
liquid-liquid extraction, Biotechnol. Prog., Vol. 4, pp 36-39, 1988.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.5420040107)
68. Liu, J., Fan, L.T., Seib, P., Friedler, F., Bertok, B., Downstream process synthesis for
biochemical production of butanol, ethanol, and acetone from grains: generation of
optimal and near-optimal flowsheets with conventional operating units, Biotechnol.
Prog., Vol. 20, 1518-1527, 2004. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bp049845v
PMid:15458338)
69. Liu, J., Fan, L.T., Seib, P., Friedler, F., Bertok, B., Holistic approach to process
retrofitting: application to downstream process for biochemical production of organics,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, pp 4200-4207, 2006.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie051014m)
70. Qureshi, N., Hughes, S., Maddox, I.S., Cotta, M.A., Energy-efficient recovery of
butanol from fermentation broth by adsorption, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng., Vol. 27, pp
215-222, 2005. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00449-005-0402-8 PMid:15744503)
71. Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H.P., Recent advances in ABE fermentation: hyper-butanol
producing Clostridium beijerinckii BA101, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biot., Vol. 27, pp
287-291, 2001. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jim.7000114 PMid:11781803)
72. Niemistö, J., Kujawski, W., Keiski, R.L., Pervaporation performance of composite
poly(dimethyl siloxane) membrane for butanol recovery from model solutions. J.
Membr. Sci., 2013.(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.01.047)
73. Van der Merwe, A.B., Cheng, H., Görgens, J.F., Knoetze, J.H., Comparison of energy
efficiency and economics of process designs for biobutanol production form sugarcane
molasses, Fuel, Vol. 105, pp 451-458., 2013.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.058)
74. Natural Resources Canada, The Addition of Bio-Butanol to GHGenius and a Review
of the GHG Emissions from Diesel Engines With Urea SCR, NRC Report, prepared
by (S&T)2 Consultants, BC, Canada:
http://www.ghgenius.ca/reports/ButanolGHGenius.pdf [Accessed Feb 5, 2013],
2007.
75. Argonne National Laboratory, GREET Model, http://greet.es.anl.gov/ [Accessed Feb
12, 2013], 2012.
76. Wu, M., Wang, M., Liu, J., Huo, H., Assessment of potential life-cycle energy and
greenhouse gas emission effects from using corn-based butanol as a transportation fuel,
Biotechnol. Prog., Vol. 24, pp 1204-1214, 2008. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.71
PMid:19194933)
77. Swana, J., Yang, Y., Behnam, M., Thompson, R., An analysis of net energy production
and feedstock availability for biobutanol and bioethanol, Bioresour. Technol., Vol,
102, pp 2112-2117, 2011. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.051
PMid:20843683)
78. BioGrace project, Publishable final report,
http://www.biograce.net/app/webroot/files/file/BioGrace_-_Final_publishable_report.p
df, 2012.
79. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, http://buiprojekte.f2.htw-berlin.de:1339/
[Accessed Jan 31, 2013], 2011.
Page 76
80. Huesemann, M.H., The failure of eco-efficiency to guarantee sustainability: Future

challenges for industrial ecology, Environ. Prog., Vol. 23, pp 264-270, 2004.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10044)
81. Manley, J.B., Anastas, P.T., Cue, B.W., Frontiers in Green Chemistry: meeting the
grand challenges for sustainability in R&D and manufacturing, J. Clean. Prod., Vol.
16, pp 743-750, 2008. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.025)
82. Demirbas, A., Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review,
Appl. Energy, Vol. 86, pp S108-S117, 2009.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.036)
83. Heck, P., Regionale Wertschöpfung als Zielvorgabe einer dauerhaft nachhaltigen,
effizienten Wirtschaftsförderung, Forum für angewandtes systemisches
Stoffstrommanagement, Jahrgang 2, p. 5-12, 2004.
84. Hoffmann, D., Creation of regional added value by regional bioenergy resources,
Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., Vol. 13, pp. 2419-2429, 2009.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.04.001)
85. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J.,
Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Yu, T.H., Land-use change greenhouse gases through
emissions from use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases, Science, Vol. 319, pp
1238-1240, 2008. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1151861 PMid:18258860)
86. Kendall, A., Chang, B., Estimating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from
corn–ethanol: a critical review of current U.S. practices, J. Clean. Prod., Vol. 17, pp
1175-1182, 2009. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.003)
87. Börjesson, P., Tufvesson, L.M., Agricultural crop-based biofuels – resource efficiency
and environmental performance including direct land use changes, J. Clean. Prod.,
Vol. 17, pp 1175-1182, 2011.
88. Abbasi, T., Abbasi, S.A., Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated
with its production and utilization, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., Vol. 14, pp 919-937,
2010. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.006)
89. Saavalainen, P., Pongrácz, E., Keiski R.L., Sustainability assessment of chemical
processes: Evaluation of five synthesis routes of DMC, Manuscript.
90. Soimakallio, S., Koponen, K., How to ensure greenhouse gas emission reductions by
increasing the use of biofuels? - Suitability of the European Union sustainability criteria,
Paper submitted: 28.02.2013
Paper revised: 09.04.2013
Paper accepted: 15.04.2013
Page 77

Biobutanol As A Potential Sustainable Biofuel - Assessment of Lignocellulosic and Waste-Based Feedstocks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biobutanol As A Potential Sustainable Biofuel - Assessment of Lignocellulosic and Waste-Based Feedstocks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biobutanol As A Potential Sustainable Biofuel - Assessment of Lignocellulosic and Waste-Based Feedstocks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water Year 2013

Biobutanol as a Potential Sustainable Biofuel - Assessment of

Johanna Niemistö*1, Paula Saavalainen1, Eva Pongrácz2, Riitta L. Keiski1

BIOBUTANOL –An alternative transportation fuel

Table 1. Fuel properties of biobutanol and advances compared to ethanol [7–9]

Biochemical production process of biobutanol

Figure 1. Steps in the biobutanol production process (modified from [10])

Feedstocks for biobutanol production

Table 2. Feedstocks used for biobutanol fermentation process

LEGISLATIVE CONSTRAINTS OF BIOFUEL SUSTAINABILITY IN THE

EVALUATION OF BIOBUTANOL PRODUCTION PROCESSES

Evaluation of feedstocks and unit processes

Production pathway analysis (GHG emissions)

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FEEDSTOCKS FOR BIOBUTANOL

Economic, environmental and social impacts of biofuel production

MATERIALS & METHODS

Assessment process for the selected feedstocks

Table 3. Assumptions made for the feedstocks

RESULTS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Table 4. Sustainability indicator values

Figure 2. Sustainability assessment of selected feedstocks for biobutanol production

Table 5. Summary of sustainability impacts of selected feedstocks

Food by-product (whey) - Innovation and employment - Costly processing

Challenges in assuring sustainability of biofuels

38. Qureshi, N., Maddox, I.S., Reduction in butanol inhibition by perstraction:

51. Murty, M.V.S., Chandra, T.S., Fermentability of hemicelluloses extracted from

80. Huesemann, M.H., The failure of eco-efficiency to guarantee sustainability: Future

You might also like