SAF Tshingua

Carbon Capture Science & Technology 13 (2024) 100263
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Carbon Capture Science & Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccst
Full Length Article
Sustainable aviation fuels: Key opportunities and challenges in lowering

carbon emissions for aviation industry
Bofan Wang a,b,1, Zhao Jia Ting a,1, Ming Zhao a,b,∗
a
School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Research Institute for Environmental Innovation (Suzhou) Tsinghua, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province 215163, China
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: As the global aviation industry faces increasing demands for carbon reduction, the need for sustainable aviation
Sustainable aviation fuels fuel (SAF) is also rising. SAF is similar to traditional kerosene-based aviation fuel but has significantly lower
Aviation industry carbon emissions. This reduction is achieved through various routes, including carbon capture technologies and
Carbon emissions reduction
the use of biogenic-carbon feedstock, such as biomass, which contribute to overall emission reduction. However,
Organic solid wastes
as a new alternative fuel, SAF’s application is limited due to a lack of awareness among countries and the absence
CORSIA
of relevant regulations. This paper provides an overview of the current state of kerosene-based aviation fuel,
the advantages of SAF, and analyzes the development potential and market for SAF, drawing on international
regulatory experiences and mainstream production routes. Additionally, it organizes the certification systems and
standards for SAF and discusses its techno-economic viability, technological maturity, and environmental benefits,
particularly in terms of carbon emissions reduction. Finally, recommendations for the future development of SAF
are provided to guide the aviation industry’s green transition and the comprehensive market application of SAF.
1. Introduction production yield of kerosene-based aviation fuel is low, generally ac-

counting for only about 10 % of crude oil. In summary, aviation fuel
1.1. Aviation fuel and its predicaments for aircraft has extremely high requirements. It must remain fluid at
low temperatures, be non-volatile, safe, stable, and have a high calorific
Aviation fuel is derived from fossil fuels and consists of hundreds value.
of hydrocarbons (mainly molecules of C8 to C16 ). It is considered to be With the international focus on carbon emissions in recent years,
a distillate of diesel and petrol. In contrast to fuels used in land and the aviation industry has had to adapt to this trend. Statistics show
maritime shipping, aviation fuel is a specialized oil product specifically that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the aviation industry ac-
produced for aircraft (Undavalli and Khandelwal, 2021). The unique count for approximately 2 % of global emissions, significantly contribut-
characteristics of aviation fuel include its high quality and the addition ing to global warming (Abrantes et al., 2021). The aviation industry’s
of various additives during production to reduce risks associated with influence on global warming is significant. Without effective counter-
temperature fluctuations, such as freezing and high-temperature explo- measures, it is estimated that the aviation industry will cause a 0.1 °C
sions (Han et al., 2021). Depending on the type of engine used, aviation increase in global temperatures by 2050 (Klöwer et al., 2021). In re-
fuels can be divided into gasoline-based aviation fuel (mainly used in sponse, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO 2016) has
aircraft with reciprocating and piston engines) and kerosene-based avi- promoted a number of measures, such as raising the aviation industry’s
ation fuel (mainly used in aircraft with gas turbine and ramjet engines) carbon emission compliance standards and improving the emission com-
(Kerrebrock, 1992). The advantages of gasoline-based aviation fuel in- pliance standards for aircraft engines (ICAO). However, these measures
clude its non-corrosive nature to aircraft parts, stability, and low crys- have not been able to reduce the root cause of the carbon emission prob-
tallization point (Heyne et al., 2021). To facilitate transportation and lem in the aviation industry (ICAO, 2009b). The rising international oil
passenger transport in harsh environments, more advanced fuels are prices and the carbon emission issues associated with fossil fuels are
required. Kerosene-based aviation fuel is widely used in large passen- forcing the aviation industry to make changes. In addition to promoting
ger and transport aircraft because of its high flammability, non-static, stricter emission standards and developing more fuel-efficient aircraft,
low temperature and non-corrosive nature (ASTM, 2022). However, the it is crucial to develop low-carbon or carbon-neutral aviation fuels.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Zhao).
1
Both these authors are of equal contribution.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100263
Received 29 June 2024; Received in revised form 20 July 2024; Accepted 29 July 2024
2772-6568/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
B. Wang, Z.J. Ting and M. Zhao Carbon Capture Science & Technology 13 (2024) 100263
1.2. The advantages and development of sustainable aviation fuels reducing production costs, and establishing robust supply chains. The
integration of SAF into global aviation, supported by robust interna-
As mentioned above, in response to climate change and carbon emis- tional policies and agreements, underscores its potential to significantly
sions, the research and development of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) reduce carbon emissions and support broader climate objectives. As the
has emerged as alternatives to the use of aviation fuels. SAF refers to aviation industry evolves, SAF will play a crucial role in shaping a sus-
renewable liquid fuel prepared from biomass, organic waste, and di- tainable future, driven by innovation, cooperation, and a commitment
rect carbon dioxide (CO2 ) capture from air (Wang and Tao, 2016). Al- to sustainability.
though SAF shares physical and chemical properties with traditional
aviation fuel, its early development stages focused primarily on nor- 1.3. Demand analysis of sustainable aviation fuels
mal and isomeric alkanes. With advancements in production technology,
SAF now also includes aromatics and cycloalkanes in alongside alkanes. With heightened awareness of climate change issues and active pro-
Typically, SAF contains normal alkanes, but these may not meet the motion by ICAO, there has been a significant global demand for SAF. Ac-
ASTM D1655 requirements for kerosene-based aviation fuel’s freezing cording to historical data (ICAO), global production of SAF was less than
and flash points. Isomeric alkanes, with their higher mass energy den- two million tons per year from 2007 to 2015 (as shown in Fig. 1). How-
sity, lower freezing point, and good thermal stability, play a vital role ever, since the adoption of CORSIA by ICAO in 2016, SAF production has
in SAF. Despite their low energy density and particulate emissions, aro- surged because of regulatory impetus, technological advancements, and
matics enhance sealant performance, preventing leaks in aviation fuel. cost reductions. Consequently, airlines have voluntarily adopted SAF to
Cycloalkanes combine the benefits of isomeric alkanes and aromatics, enhance their brand image and reduce carbon footprints, which, along
providing excellent sealing properties while meeting energy density re- with increased private and public sector investments, has driven the
quirements. Current trends in SAF production aim to increase the con- expansion of production facilities and commercialization of SAF tech-
tent of isomeric alkane content and reduce aromatics, gradually replac- nologies. It is estimated that by 2050, global annual SAF production will
ing them with cycloalkanes. Overall, SAF significantly reduces carbon reach 26 million tons (32.5 billion liters), as shown in Fig. 1 (ICAO). This
emissions (potentially by up to 80 %) and particulate emissions through- growth reflects broader trends in corporate responsibility and strategic
out its production route compared to traditional aviation fuel (Liu et al., market positioning within the aviation industry. Despite the recogni-
2013; Wang and Tao, 2016), making it a promising short-term solution tion of SAF’s strategic importance for achieving climate goals by both
for the aviation industry to reduce emissions and mitigating environ- private and public sectors, sustained innovation, investment, policy sup-
mental impacts. port, and global collaboration are still required to achieve the projected
Due to SAF’s similarities with traditional aviation fuel, they can be production levels and substantially reduce carbon emissions in the avi-
directly blended and used interchangeably without modifications to air- ation industry.
craft engines or related equipment (ICAO, 2022c). SAF not only helps According to the latest data from the International Air Transport As-
the aviation industry reduces carbon emissions but also supports coun- sociation (IATA), SAF production in 2023 doubled that of 2022, reach-
tries and regions in achieving their Nationally Determined Contribu- ing 480 thousand tons. Despite the continuous growth in SAF produc-
tions (NDCs) through carbon offset mechanisms. This global interest has tion, it still falls far short of the demand. In fact, SAF constitutes a mere
spurred significant developments in SAF and related industries. 6 % of the total renewable fuel production projected for 2024, largely
While SAF offers significant advantages over conventional aviation due to producers prioritizing other renewable fuels. To achieve the avi-
fuels, its integration into the aviation industry requires alignment with ation industry’s goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, SAF’s pro-
international policies on environmental protection and climate change. duction share needs to reach 25–30 %. While the use of SAF has gained
Generally, SAF development and policy formulation can be categorized widespread recognition—for instance, in 2023, using SAF increased air-
into three stages (as shown in Table 1) lines’ fuel costs by $756 million, and at least 43 airlines have committed
SAF is pivotal in the aviation industry’s strategy to reduce carbon to using approximately 13 million tons of SAF by 2030—governments
emissions according to Table 1. Its development has been driven by still need to implement more incentive policies to promote the expan-
significant regulatory frameworks, stringent environmental standards, sion of SAF production (IATA, 2023a, 2024). In addition, the high cost
and a focus on commercial viability. The concept of SAF arose from of SAF, approximately $2860 per ton ($8.67 per gallon), double that of
the need to address the aviation sector’s substantial carbon footprint, traditional aviation fuel, exacerbates the issue, limiting its widespread
as underscored by international climate policies in the 1990s, includ- adoption in the aviation sector (Patterson, 2022). Furthermore, the de-
ing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN- velopment and production of SAF, along with the establishment of ro-
FCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. These policies highlighted the necessity bust regulatory standards, are still in nascent stages globally. This under-
for global cooperation and sustainable development, paving the way for development poses significant challenges to ICAO’s vision of completely
SAF as a sustainable alternative to traditional aviation fuels. The estab- replacing traditional aviation fuels with SAF. For meaningful progress,
lishment of SAF standards was crucial, with the ICAO’s Global Frame- comprehensive policy frameworks and increased investment in SAF in-
work for Aviation and Alternative Fuels (GFAAF) in 2009 formally rec- frastructure are imperative.
ognizing SAF and the Paris Agreement in 2015 further reinforcing its European and American countries are at the forefront of both the
role in global climate goals. The period from 2016 to 2018 saw signif- consumption and production of SAF, primarily driven by stringent car-
icant advancements, including the introduction of the Aviation Carbon bon emission regulations within the aviation sector. The European
Reduction Framework and CORSIA, which promoted SAF adoption. The Union’s ReFuelEU initiative mandates a gradual increase in SAF us-
inclusion of SAF standards in Annex 16, Volume IV, of the Convention age by airlines, significantly influencing demand. In the United States,
on International Civil Aviation in 2018 established rigorous guidelines tax incentives and government funding support SAF-related research,
for its production and use. SAF offers substantial environmental bene- development, and application, further stimulating production and de-
fits, reducing lifecycle carbon emissions by up to 80 % through the use mand. Europe mainly utilizes the Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty
of renewable feedstocks and supporting the circular economy. Ensuring Acids (HEFA) route for SAF production, supplemented by Alcohol-to-
the long-term development of SAF depends on international coopera- Jet (ATJ), Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK), and
tion, regulatory refinement, and technological advancements to improve emerging Power to Liquid (PTL) routes. By 2025, Europe’s production
production efficiency and feedstock availability. The commercial appli- capacities are projected to reach 7.2 million tons for HEFA, 700,000 tons
cation of SAF began with the CORSIA Phase I Pilot in 2021, marking for FT-SPK, 400,000 tons for ATJ, and 200,000 tons for PTL. HEFA’s
a pivotal shift towards widespread adoption. Promoting and commer- relatively lower manufacturing costs have made it the primary pro-
cializing SAF involves addressing economic and logistical challenges, duction route, ensuring scalable and efficient production to meet de-
2
Table 1
Stages of SAF development and related policies.
Stage Era/Year Policies/Matters Description Refs.
United Nations Framework Convention on ➢ Clarify the principles that should govern relevant (UNFCCC, 1992)
1990s
Climate Change international cooperation:
Stage I
➢ The principle of “common but differentiated
responsibilities”
➢ The principle of equity
➢ The principle of respective capabilities
➢ The principles of sustainable development
Kyoto Protocol ➢ Distinguishing between provisions for emission (UNFCCC, 1998)

reduction measures in developed and developing
countries
➢ Require Contracting Parties to endeavor to limit or
reduce aviation emissions through ICAOs
2009 Global Framework for Aviation and ➢ The ICAO makes strict distinctions and definitions (ICAO, 2009a)
Alternative Fuels (GFAAF) between conventional aviation kerosene, off-the-shelf
jet blended fuel, and off-the-shelf jet pure fuel
2015 Paris Agreement ➢ Plans for international mechanisms in the post-Kyoto (UNFCCC, 2015)
era are being developed
➢ The INDCs mechanism has been proposed
2016 38th ICAO Congress ➢ Aviation Carbon Reduction Framework developed and (ICAO, 2017a; ICAO)
Stage II Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for
International Aviation (CORSIA) adopted
➢ Beginning to promote the development and
deployment of policies for alternative fuels for
aviation in member countries (but SAF-related rules
are not yet in place).
2017 ICAO 39th Congress ➢ The ICAO defined SAF for the first time (ICAO, 2017b)
➢ It is proposed that SAF’s share of international
aviation fuel demand will reach 50 % by 2050
2018 Annex 16 to the Convention on ➢ Inclusion of SAF’s environmental and sustainability (ICAO, 2018)
International Civil Aviation, Volume IV standards as recommended measures
➢ Framework for importing SAF into CORSIA
➢ Clarified process for developing sustainability criteria
Stage III 2021 CORSIA Phase I Pilot ➢ SAF is moving into commercial application (ICAO)
➢ Airlines within the scope of CORSIA are required to

submit a report demonstrating their purchase of
sufficient carbon credits to offset the growth in
emissions over the past period
➢ CORSIA will be fully mandatory from 2027, with some

countries incorporating mandatory SAF blending
ratios into their emission reduction mechanisms
mand. In contrast, the United States predominantly employs the ATJ velopment across countries, which makes it challenging for the region’s
route, followed by FT-SPK and HEFA, with a strategic goal of increas- aviation industry to make the transition. However, according to IATA es-
ing annual production capacity to 9 million tons by 2030. This strategic timates (Fig. 2), the Asia-Pacific region has significant potential for SAF
emphasis on enhancing production capacity aligns with the projected production, with 200 million tons of SAF expected to be produced by
demand growth driven by regulatory measures and market dynamics. 2050 (Strategyand, 2023). In addition, as the Asia-Pacific region increas-
The interplay between production, production capacity, and demand ingly adapts to stringent environmental standards and high public de-
is critical. Regulatory frameworks driving higher SAF usage result in mand for cleaner energy, the application of SAF has received a positive
increased demand. To meet this demand, both Europe and the United response from Asia-Pacific governments. For example, Finland’s Neste
States are expanding their production capacities. Enhanced production has built the world’s largest SAF production facility in Singapore, which
capacity allows for higher actual production levels, ensuring that sup- is expected to produce one million tons of SAF annually, and Japanese
ply is able to meet the rising demand. This situation underscores the airlines have set up SAF procurement plans to achieve a 10 % replace-
necessity of strategic planning and investment in technology and infras- ment of aviation fuel with SAF. Qantas and Air New Zealand are also
tructure to achieve sustainable growth in the SAF industry (Liu et al., committed to using SAF (Goh, 2023). In recent years, China has gradu-
2013; Nygren et al., 2009). ally initiated research, development, and application of SAF. By 2030,
Compared to the European and American markets, the development China’s annual SAF production is projected to exceed 19 million tons,
of SAF in the Asia-Pacific region is still in its infancy and relies heavily while the anticipated demand is 3.1 million tons. This surplus indicates
on government support. This is mainly due to the uneven level of de- that China’s production capacity is significantly higher than current de-
3
Fig. 1. Global SAF generation, 2007–2018. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2. Potential global SAF production capacity by region (Strategy, 2023). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
mand, providing a robust buffer that can accommodate future increases tably, waste cooking oil is currently the main feedstock for producing
in SAF usage. By 2050, SAF production in China is expected to reach biodiesel in China, with a considerable recovery potential (over 5 mil-
82 million tons, closely aligning with the projected demand of 86.1 million tons annually). It is expected that in the future, waste cooking
lion tons. This near-parity between production and demand highlights oil could also become a major feedstock for SAF production in China
China’s potential to balance supply with growing market needs effec- (Deloitte, 2023).
tively. The substantial production capacity demonstrates China’s ability Although the SAF market is growing strongly, it still faces techni-
to scale up SAF production to meet both domestic and international de- cal and cost challenges. For example, the feasibility of SAF production
mand. With appropriate funding and policy support, China could lever- still depends on feedstock availability, cost-effectiveness, and route se-
age its production capabilities to become a global leader in the SAF lection. Overall, technological advancements and gradual cost reduc-
industry. Additionally, the sustainable collection of SAF feedstock in tions, coupled with policy drivers, will be key factors in promoting the
China, which does not impact food supply, further supports long-term widespread application and commercialization of SAF. As global atten-
production viability. However, there is a need for improved infrastruc- tion to reducing environmental impacts continues to increase, the de-
ture to support the rural supply chain, ensuring efficient feedstock col- mand for, production of, and market prospects for SAF are expected to
lection and distribution to meet the growing production demands. No- improve steadily.
4
1.4. Experiences with sustainable aviation fuel regulation 1.4.2. United Kingdom
Currently, in its legal framework and aviation zero-emission strat-
Currently, most countries around the world adopt incentive policies egy, the UK provides a relatively broad description of SAF, stating that
for the research and application of SAF rather than mandatory legal it can be produced from sustainable resources or feedstocks. In 2023,
regulations, generally taking a “wait-and-see” approach while encour- to align more closely with the EU, the UK Department for Transport
aging development. In the long term, this approach is detrimental to the mentioned in its consultation that SAF is primarily made from waste,
development of SAF and will likely lead to regional disparities. These residues, recycled carbon fuels, and synthetic fuels produced using
disparities include differences in the definition of SAF, raw materials low-carbon electricity, explicitly excluding inedible food or feed crops
and technical standards for SAF production, classification of SAF qual- (Transport, 2023).
ity, and subsidy and tax credit policies. These variations also make it After Brexit, the UK has not only followed the EU’s general policy in
difficult for ICAO to coordinate the application of SAF among its mem- terms of aviation carbon reduction but has also published its own Jet
ber countries. To address this, ICAO has implemented three measures Zero Strategy. The Jet Zero Strategy includes a mandatory measure for
to coordinate and guide its member countries in developing the SAF SAF blending (at least 10 % SAF blending by 2025; full replacement of
industry: conventional aviation fuels with SAF by 2030), and legislation has been
enacted for this purpose. In terms of industrial policy, the UK has set up
• Setting a net-zero carbon emissions target for international aviation a number of SAF projects, SAF certification centers and associated funds
by 2050 and recognizing the carbon reduction potential SAF brings to enable large-scale production of SAF (Transport, 2022).
to the aviation industry (ICAO, 2022a)
• Introducing SAF-related guidance documents to standardize the 1.4.3. EU
development of SAF-related policies in its member countries The European Union does not legally define SAF; instead, its inter-
(ICAO, 2023) pretation is mainly reflected in the “ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation,”
• Launching SAF-related assistance, construction, and training pro- which defines SAF as “sustainable standard biofuels and synthetic low-
grams (ACT-SAF) carbon fuels”. The scope of SAF use is limited to synthetic aviation fuels,
aviation biofuels, and recycled carbon aviation fuels. However, this cat-
Although ICAO has made significant efforts to coordinate and man-
egorization has not been recognized by ICAO.
age the application of SAF, it remains a conceptual green fuel at this
Overall, in recent years, the EU has rapidly advanced its renewable
stage. To maintain flexibility and address their own needs, countries of-
energy initiatives, developing numerous policies and standards, includ-
ten refrain from strictly defining SAF in legislation and have not estab-
ing those related to SAF. To achieve NDCs and rapid carbon reduction in
lished corresponding mutual recognition mechanisms. This is also true
the aviation sector, the EU introduced the “ReFuelEU Aviation Regula-
for leading regions in SAF development, such as the United States, the
tion” in 2021 to promote the production and use of SAF. This regulation
United Kingdom, and the European Union. Other countries tend to learn
also includes a tax on the use of fossil fuels in aviation industry. Addi-
and refer the standards or policies of these more developed regions to
tionally, all airports in the EU must ensure that their infrastructure meets
formulate their own SAF-related standards. The following sections will
the requirements for SAF refueling. In April 2023, the European Parlia-
analyze and summarize the policies and strategies related to SAF in the
ment and member states mandated that all aircraft departing from the
United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
EU must use SAF-blended fuel, with the blending ratio increasing grad-
ually from 2 % in 2025 to 70 % by 2050 (Parliament, 2023).
1.4.1. United States
The definition of SAF in the United States largely follows the Amer- 1.5. Prospects of producing sustainable aviation fuels from organic solid
ican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard, which states wastes
that SAF is a “renewable or waste-derived aviation fuel that meets
sustainability criteria” (ICAO, 2018). In fact, the definition of SAF in The development of SAF has significant environmental and socio-
the U.S. is not very precise. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) economic potential to effectively reduce carbon emissions from the avi-
Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) considers SAF to be a renew- ation industry. Additionally, since most of the feedstocks used in the pro-
able fuel similar to traditional aviation fuels, but with a smaller carbon duction of SAF are organic solid wastes (OSWs), the application of SAF
footprint (Energy, 2023). Additionally, the Federal Aviation Adminis- promotes better utilization of these wastes globally, effectively address-
tration (FAA) places primary emphasis on the feedstocks from which ing the problem of their treatment and disposal. According to the U.S.
SAF is produced, such as biomass, waste, and gaseous carbon oxides Department of Energy, a wide variety of OSWs can be used to produce
(Oldani, 2023). For regulations related to the application of SAF, the SAF, including but not limited to corn grain, oilseeds, algae, oily wastes,
U.S. is mainly guided by the “Sustainable Skies Act” and “the Aviation agricultural and forestry wastes, lumber mill wastes, municipal rubbish,
Climate Action Plan”. The U.S. has an early and relatively mature SAF livestock manure, municipal sludge, and energy crops (Energy, 2023).
technology development, leading to numerous supportive policies at the Furthermore, observations and statistics from IATA indicate significant
legal level. These systematic certification standards have a significant in- regional differences in the types of OSWs used for SAF production across
fluence on ICAO. Currently, the U.S. is refining its subsidy policies for the globe, as shown in Table 2.
SAF and related industries. According to the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organiza-
The “Sustainable Skies Act” was proposed by the U.S. Congress in tion of the United Nations (FAO), and the International Food Policy Re-
2021 to promote SAF adoption through targeted incentives. Addition- search Institute (IFPRI), in 2020, the global generation of OSWs (con-
ally, the FAA released the “Aviation Climate Action Plan,” which sets sisting of municipal solid wastes, agricultural wastes, and food wastes)
a production target of 3 billion gallons of SAF per year and aims to re- was approximately 7.34 billion tons. With rapid population growth and
duce the aviation industry’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 % accelerated urbanization, it is projected that by 2050, the annual pro-
by 2030 and eliminate the use of traditional aviation fuel by 2050 duction of OSWs will reach 12.71 billion tons (Bank, 2022; FAO 2020,
(Administration, 2021). In the same year, the U.S. Departments of En- 2022). Transforming these OSWs into SAF could not only alleviate envi-
ergy, Transportation, and Agriculture also entered into a partnership to ronmental pollution caused by traditional waste management methods
develop and produce SAF (Energy, 2021). Since 2022, the U.S. has been (such as landfilling and incineration), including greenhouse gas emis-
focusing on SAF-related policies at the legal level, though it has not im- sions, groundwater contamination, and deteriorating air quality, but
posed mandatory requirements on SAF production volumes or blending also substitute traditional petroleum fuels and significantly reduce car-
ratios (IRS, 2023). bon emissions throughout the lifecycle of aviation fuels. According to
5
Table 2
SAF feedstock by region (IATA, 2023b).
Africa Asia Pacific Region Europe Middle East North America North Asia Oceania South America
Cover Crops Agricultural Wastes Forestry Wastes Atmospheric CO2 Agricultural Wastes Waste Fat/Oil Regenerative Crops Agricultural Wastes
Agricultural Wastes Waste fat/oil MSWs Kitchen Wastes Cover Crops Agricultural Wastes Agricultural Wastes Regenerative Crops
Invasive Plants MSWs Cover Crops Algal Oil Waste Fat/Oil Atmospheric CO2 Waste Fat/Oil Waste Fat/Oil
Exhaust Gases Industrial Wastes Atmospheric CO2 Exhaust Gases MSWs Exhaust Gases Atmospheric CO2 Forestry Wastes
∗
Regeneration crops are cultivated using sustainable agricultural practices.
estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy, one billion tons of dry to energy security. This holistic approach provides a comprehensive
OSWs could theoretically produce 50–60 billion gallons (equivalent to view of the positive externalities associated with SAF.
151.6–181.9 million tons) of SAF (Energy, 2023). Using the 2020 figures
for global OSWs production (with a moisture content of 70 %), theoreti- By addressing these areas, our study not only fills a critical research
cally, it could theoretically produce 110.1–132.12 billion gallons (equiv- gap but also offers valuable insights for policymakers, industry stake-
alent to 333.8–400.6 million tons) of SAF, and by 2050, this could gen- holders, and researchers. It underscores the multifaceted benefits of SAF,
erate 190.65–228.78 billion gallons (equivalent to 578.1–693.7 million promoting a more informed and balanced discussion on their role in
tons) of SAF. Additionally, according to data from the International En- achieving sustainable aviation.
ergy Agency (IEA) and IATA, in 2020, the global aviation industry’s fuel
demand was approximately 58 billion gallons (equivalent to 175.9 mil- 2. Technological routes for sustainable aviation fuels from
lion tons), with projections indicating that by 2050, the fuel demand organic solid wastes
in the aviation industry will be 3.6 times that of 2020 (Energy, 2022;
IATA, 2021; IEA, 2020). Therefore, SAF could theoretically be produced The transition to SAF is a crucial strategy for reducing carbon emis-
to meet global aviation fuel demand in 2020. By 2050, this SAF could sions in the aviation industry. There are several routes for preparing
replace at least 86.3 % of global aviation fuel demand. SAF, and the ones currently certified by ASTM include Hydroprocessed
In summary, the vigorous development of SAF can solve the global Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), Hydrocarbon-Hydroprocessed Esters
OSWs treatment problem, enhance resource utilization efficiency, pro- and Fatty Acids (HC–HEFA), Catalytic Hydrothermolysis (CH), Fischer-
mote a circular economy and mitigate climate change at the same time. Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK), Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ),
Moreover, this technology enhances energy security and reduces de- and Synthetic Iso-Paraffins (SIP) (IATA). In addition, technologies such
pendence on external energy supply, which is especially important for as lignin conversion and aqueous phase reforming are still under devel-
resource-poor countries. With technological advances and cost reduc- opment (Wei et al., 2019) . Generally, the SAF preparation process is to
tions, SAF from OSWs is expected to play an increasingly important role obtain synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK), which is the main compo-
in reducing carbon footprint reduction and in the global energy market nent of kerosene-based aviation fuel. However, the fuel produced from
in the future.1.6 Research gap and Contribution of this study SPK lacks aromatics and cyclic chain alkanes and therefore needs to be
The literature on SAF has extensively covered various production blended with conventional kerosene-based aviation fuel (Brooks et al.,
processes, economic viability, and carbon footprint emissions. Numer- 2016). Despite this, SAF significantly contributes to carbon emissions
ous studies have focused on optimizing production pathways, evaluating reduction, with lifecycle GHG emissions potentially being much lower
feedstock availability, and assessing the economic feasibility of differ- than those of conventional aviation fuels. Fig. 3 summarizes the various
ent SAF technologies. Additionally, significant research has been con- routes and feedstocks used to produce SAF.
ducted on quantifying the carbon footprint associated with SAF produc-
tion and usage, aiming to highlight the potential environmental benefits 2.1. Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA)
over conventional aviation fuels. However, there is a noticeable gap in
the literature concerning the comprehensive analysis of current SAF reg- The HEFA route primarily utilizes vegetable oil, animal fats, waste
ulations and the broader environmental and societal benefits. While the cooking oil and so on to produce aviation fuel. Theoretically, pro-
technical and economic aspects of SAF have been well-documented, the ducing 1 ton of HEFA aviation fuel requires 1.2 tons of vegetable oil
regulatory frameworks that govern SAF deployment, their compliance (IATA, 2015). The specific route is shown in Fig. 4. The route extracts oil
mechanisms, and the detailed environmental impacts, including pollu- from oily biomass. The extracted oil contains unsaturated fatty acids and
tant emissions and societal benefits, remain underexplored. glycerides, which require catalytic hydrogenation to remove the double
This study aims to bridge this gap by providing an in-depth dis- bonds and form saturated triglycerides (Munoz et al., 2012). Triglyc-
cussion of the current regulations governing SAF, alongside a thor- erides can be decomposed into 1 molecule of glycerol and 3 molecules
ough analysis of the environmental benefits. Our research uniquely con- of trans fatty acids by thermal hydrolysis reaction, and glycerol can be
tributes to the existing body of knowledge by: further converted to propane by hydrogenation (Alenezi et al., 2010).
By means of hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) or decarboxylation (DCO) re-
1. Regulatory Analysis: Offering a detailed examination of the current actions, the oxygen is removed from the free fatty acids (FFAs), pro-
regulatory frameworks, including international policies and stan- ducing octadecane (C18 H38 ) and heptadecane (C17 H36 ), respectively.
dards that shape the adoption and implementation of SAF. This in- The primary distinction between them is that HDO primarily produces
cludes a review of key regulatory milestones and their implications water, while DCO mainly produces CO2 . The HDO reaction consumes
for the aviation industry. an abundance of hydrogen under substantial pressure and typically oc-
2. Environmental Impact Assessment: Beyond carbon footprint anal- curs at 300–600 °C with the involvement of heterogeneous catalysts,
ysis, this study delves into the pollutant emissions associated with such as sulfide nickel-molybdenum and cobalt-molybdenum catalysts
SAF usage, evaluating their potential to reduce overall environmen- (Huber et al., 2006; Maggi and Elliott, 1997). DCO is a reaction that
tal harm. This includes an analysis of various pollutants and their removes oxygen from FFAs and has the advantage of operating at
comparative impact relative to conventional aviation fuels. lower pressures with lower hydrogen consumption (Marker, 2005). Al-
3. Societal Benefit Analysis: Assessing the broader societal benefits of though straight-chain paraffins can be prepared in either way, their flash
SAF adoption, such as public health improvements, economic oppor- point, freezing point, and cloud point do not meet the specifications
tunities in rural areas due to feedstock production, and contributions (Noah, 2011; Wang, 2016; Wang et al., 2016). Therefore, straight-chain
6
Fig. 3. Main preparation routes for SAF (IATA; Wei et al., 2019).
Fig. 4. HEFA route (Główka et al., 2024).
kerosenes are further processed into branched-chain kerosenes in the long-chain (C10 – C16 ) and short-chain olefins (C4 – C8 ). The shorter-chain
hydroisomerisation reaction to lower their freezing point (Wang et al., olefins are separated and recycled back into the oligomerization unit,
2016). while the heavier olefin fractions (C10 – C16 ) undergo hydrogenation to
produce the desired SAF products (Choo et al., 2001).
2.2. Alcohol-to-jet (ATJ)
2.3. Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene (FT-SPK)
The ATJ route converts short-chain alcohols (e.g., methanol, ethanol
and butanol) into long-chain hydrocarbons (C8 – C16 ). This route shown The F-T route has been widely used for synthesizing liquid fuels and
in Fig. 5 involves the production of alcohols by fermentation of hy- chemicals. This route primarily converts syngas into liquid fuels, and the
drolysates extracted from carbohydrate-rich biomass (e.g., molasses composition of the hydrocarbon products is impacted by temperature,
and sugarcane) or lignocellulosic biomass. (e.g., grains and rice straw) pressure, syngas composition, and the catalysts used (Hanaoka et al.,
(Martinez Hernandez and Ng, 2018). These alcohols are then converted 2015). Generally, the F-T route exhibited in Fig. 6 is able to be cat-
into SAF using methods such as fermentation, dehydration, oligomer- egorized into high-temperature (HTFT) and low-temperature routes
ization, and hydrogenation (Liu et al., 2013). After fermentation, alco- (LTFT). The high-temperature F-T route operates at 310–340 °C and pro-
hols, microorganisms, and other organic compounds are separated us- duces short-chain hydrocarbons, mainly gasoline and olefins. The low-
ing methods such as membrane separation, distillation, and solid-liquid temperature F-T route operates at 210–260 °C and primarily generates
separation (Dusséaux et al., 2013). For example, isobutanol is typically solid wax, along with liquid-phase aromatics and cycloparaffins. These
converted into isobutene at a temperature of 300–350 °C with dehy- waxy hydrocarbons are further processed into naphtha, kerosene, and
dration catalysts (such as inorganic strong acids, metal oxides, and ze- diesel (Chiodini et al., 2017). Under the condition of loaded alkali metal
olites) (Taylor et al., 2010). Isobutene monomers undergo oligomer- catalysts (Srinivas et al., 2007), the liquid hydrocarbons in the F-T route
ization with acidic or metal catalysts, producing a liquid mixture of are hydroprocessed to produce SAF products through DCO or HDO re-
7
Fig. 5. ATJ route (Martinez Hernandez and Ng, 2018).
Fig. 6. FT-SPK route (Ail and Dasappa, 2016; Srinivas et al., 2007).
Fig. 7. SIP route (Davis et al., 2013; Mawhood et al., 2016).
action. Additionally, for the gaseous components, the olefins and resid- also designed microbes proficient in fermenting both C5 and C6 sug-
ual oxygenated unsaturated hydrocarbons can be converted into satu- ars (Lane, 2015; Mawhood et al., 2016). At the end of the fermentation
rated hydrocarbons through hydrogenation. The wax phase (C20–23+ ) process of the feedstocks, separation is carried out using liquid or solid
substances can be hydrocracked into smaller molecules, which are then centrifugation, and the supernatant consisting of farnesene oil, farne-
isomerized into branched hydrocarbons. Finally, the hydrocarbons of sene liquid and fermentation broth is gathered for subsequent purifica-
varying lengths are refined to yield naphtha, kerosene, and diesel. tion. During the purification process, the gathered supernatant is placed
in a demulsifying unit, and a surfactant is added. It is then transferred
2.4. Synthesized isoparaffins (SIP) to liquid/liquid centrifugation to separate the oil and aqueous phases
(Neil Renninger, 2008). In the distillation stage, contaminants are sep-
SIP was incorporated into ASTM D7566 in June 2014 with a max- arated into a light fraction containing triglycerides, monoglycerides,
imum fuel blend of 10 %. As shown in Fig. 7, sugars from biomass salts, and farnesene. The distilled farnesene is hydrogenated with cata-
feedstocks are fermented into C15 H24 (also known as farnesene), lysts such as Ni, Pd, Ru, Pt, Mo, and Zn to produce farnesane. Farnesane
which is then hydrogenated to farnesane (C15 H32 ) (Davis et al., 2013; can be used as diesel fuel for land transportation. Additionally, farne-
Mawhood et al., 2016). The Amyris and Total joint venture is a ma- sene can be chemically converted into various products, including fra-
jor developer of SIP, generally utilizing carbohydrate-rich feedstocks grances, flavors, cosmetics, and lubricants. The by-products generated
such as maize, sugar beet and sugar cane (Lane, 2015). They have during the separation and purification steps can be used in anaerobic
8
Fig. 8. CH route (Li et al., 2010).
Fig. 9. HC–HEFA route (Cabrera and de Sousa, 2022).
digestion to yield biogas (Gray et al., 2014). The biogas is then intro- to steps such as cracking and isomerization to obtain the SAF product
duced into the steam methane reforming process to generate hydrogen (Emmanouilidou et al., 2023).
required for hydrogenation step. Moreover, the SIP production steps are
relatively simple, as the fermentation process does not require high tem- 2.7. Power-to-liquid (PTL)
peratures, high pressures, and chemical catalysts. However, the output
energy of this route is low, which is a disadvantage for producing SAF The PTL route shown in Fig. 10 produces hydrogen from water elec-
products. Various studies have indicated that the SIP route is more suit- trolysis and CO2 from air capture using green power generation such as
able for producing high-value chemicals (Realmonte et al., 2019). photovoltaic and wind power. The green hydrogen and air-captured CO2
are converted into synthetic crude oil, which is further converted into
2.5. Catalytic hydrothermolysis (CH) kerosene, diesel and gasoline through hydrocracking and other steps
(Fu et al., 2010).
The CH route presented in Fig. 8 converts oil-based feedstocks into
linear, branched, and cyclic hydrocarbons. The main units of this route 3. Certification and standards of sustainable aviation fuels
include hydrothermal pretreatment, catalytic hydrothermolysis, hydro-
genation, and product fractionation. In pretreatment stage, the oil-based As a new alternative fuel, SAF has been generally recognized by the
feedstock undergoes cracking under the influence of steam and catalysts aviation industry, and related policies and regulations are gradually be-
at 150–300 °C and 5–50 bar. This part removes heteroatoms, resulting ing planned or implemented in countries. The aviation industry also em-
in free fatty acids. These fatty acids are then converted under higher phasizes the need to establish and improve the certification systems and
temperatures and pressures in the CH unit. The products of this process standards for SAF. Only through relevant certifications and standards
are divided into organic and aqueous phases. The aqueous phase mainly can SAF products be marketed and sold. Currently, the certification sys-
consists of low-molecular-weight carboxylic acids (C2 – C5 ), glycerol, and tem for SAF needs to be based on the framework of ICAO’s CORSIA.
small polar molecules (Li et al., 2010). These compounds are converted Within the CORSIA framework, the certification systems include the RSB
into olefin products through decarboxylation and dehydration. The in- CORSIA designed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB)
termediate products can also be upgraded into SAF products through al- and the ISCC CORSIA designed by the International Sustainability & Car-
cohol recovery (oligomerization, hydrogenation, and distillation). The bon Certification (ISCC). As for route and performance standards, they
organic phase products can undergo further decarboxylation and hydro- primarily follow the standards set by ASTM. By ensuring that SAF meets
genation, and be distilled into various products, including naphtha and stringent environmental and performance criteria, the aviation industry
kerosene. has the potential to achieve substantial progress toward its sustainability
goals and reduce its carbon footprint.
2.6. Algae-derived hydrocarbon-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids
(HC–HEFA) 3.1. SAF certification system under the carbon offset and reduction scheme
for international aviation (CORSIA)
The HC–HEFA route illustrated in Fig. 9 was certified by ASTM in
2020. The feedstock for this route is mainly derived from microalgae, Since the 39th ICAO Assembly in 2016 approved CORSIA, a global
such as Botryococcus braunii, and is still in the testing stage. The route market-based emissions reduction system for the aviation industry has
converts the feedstock into hydrocarbons through a pretreatment and been established. CORSIA, based on Article 43 of the Chicago Conven-
hydrogenation process. The generated hydrocarbons are then subjected tion, aims to incorporate carbon emissions and offset regulations for the
9
Fig. 10. PTL route (Fu et al., 2010).
global aviation industry into market-oriented measures. CORSIA allows 3.1.1. Roundtable on sustainable biomass initiative (RSB)
aircraft operators to reduce their offset requirements by using alterna- RSB is an international fuel certification system used by biomass and
tive fuels that meet CORSIA eligibility, including SAF and low-carbon fuel producers, as well as traders, processors and transporters of biomass
aviation fuels. Relevant standards are defined in certain sections of Vol- and fuels. The system regulates biomass and its fuels from the angle of
ume IV of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation environmental and social benefits and defines the various aspects and
(ICAO, 2018): methods of producing and trading biomass-based fuels. Additionally,
fuel producers need to fulfil the following 12 principles to be certified
• 2.2.4 Monitoring of CORSIA-eligible fuel claims;
by RSB (RSB, 2020):
• 2.3.3 Reporting of CORSIA-eligible fuels;
• 2.4.3 Verification of CORSIA eligible fuels;
• 3.3 Emission reductions from the use of CORSIA-eligible fuels. • Legality: Operate legally and follow all applicable laws and regula-
tions.
These sections include references to five ICAO documents that are
• Planning, monitoring and continuous improvements: Plan, imple-
critical to the implementation of CORSIA (ICAO):
ment, and continuously improve through open, transparent, and con-
• CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for Sustainability sultative assessment and management processes and economic fea-
Certification Schemes sibility analysis.
• CORSIA-Approved Sustainability Certification Schemes • Greenhouse gas emissions: Reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emis-
• CORSIA Sustainability Criteria for CORSIA Eligible fuels. sions compared to fossil fuels, contributing to climate change miti-
• CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fu- gation.
els • Human and labor rights: Do not infringe on human or labor rights,
• CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions and promote decent work and worker welfare.
Values • Rural and social development: Assist in the social and economic de-
velopment of local, rural, and indigenous people and communities,
Additionally, under the CORSIA framework, feedstocks used for avi-
especially in poverty-stricken areas.
ation fuel production are defined as “untreated raw materials used to
• Local food security: Ensure access to adequate food, improving food
produce aviation fuel”. Feedstocks for CORSIA-eligible fuel production
security in vulnerable areas.
can be categorized as (ICAO):
• Conservation: Take actions to avoid negative impacts on biodiver-
• Primary and co-products: Main products of a production route with sity, ecosystems and conservation values
significant economic value and flexible supply. • Soil: Implement actions to address or prevent soil degradation and
• By-products: Secondary products with inflexible supply and eco- maintain soil health.
nomic value. • Water: Maintain or improve the quality and quantity of surface and
• Wastes: Materials with inflexible supply and no economic value, dis- groundwater resources, respecting prior formal or customary water
carded or intended to be discarded by the holder. Materials or sub- rights.
stances intentionally modified or contaminated to meet this defini- • Air quality: Minimize air pollution throughout the supply chain.
tion are excluded. • Use of technologies, inputs and management of waste: Maximize
• Residues: Secondary materials with inflexible supply and minimal production efficiency and social and environmental benefits while
economic value. minimizing risks to the environment and people.
Under the CORSIA framework, by-products, wastes, and residues are • Land rights: Respect land rights and land use rights
assigned a zero Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) value when calculat-
ing the life cycle emissions of aviation fuel. Primary and co-products can In December 2020, RSB CORSIA, compliant with the CORSIA frame-
also obtain a zero ILUC value through the low Land Use Change (LUC) work, was recognized by ICAO to certify biomass suppliers and fuel pro-
risk methodology defined in “CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Ac- ducers, ensuring their SAF products meet CORSIA requirements. RSB
tual Life Cycle Emissions Values”. To qualify, these fuels must come CORSIA certifies SAF feedstocks such as primary biomass, municipal
from fuel producers certified by an ICAO-approved Sustainability Certi- solid waste, and biomass extracted from waste products or residues.
fication Scheme (SCS). These SCS must meet the requirements outlined Table 3 outlines the RSB CORSIA certification process. After verifica-
in “CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for Sustainability tion, if the product does not meet most of the standards, the auditor
Certification Schemes.” Currently, the ICAO-approved SCS include those will arrange additional time to collaboratively resolve the issues until
from the RSB and the ISCC. re-certification is achieved. If only a few standards are not met, certi-
10
Table 3
RSB CORSIA certification process (RSB, 2020).
Process Description
Step 1: Selection of validation criteria Select RSB CORSIA

Step 2: Start the application Fill in the application form and agree to the project and content of the application:
a. Fill out the application form to register for RSB

b. Contact reviewers
c. Determination the date of the review
d. Pay the application fees
e. Public consultation period (14 days)
Step 3: Review of predecessor operations Discuss the need for product compliance with the verification specification prior to
the review:
a. Collect product-related information and content

b. Use the resources provided by RSB to assist in the preparation process.
c. Prepare for the RSB review
d. Conduct a self-risk assessment
e. Perform screening tests
f. Calculate greenhouse gases emissions
g. Implement an environmental and social management program
h. Outline procedures for the chain of custody
i. Draft the RSB Statement Outline Procedure
j. Compile a list of stakeholders
Step 4: Review and validation Certification is issued upon completion of the review
Table 4
ISCC CORSIA certification process (ISCC).
Process Description
Step 1: Choose the right certification body Select ISCC CORSIA and contract with the appropriate certification body
and certification system
Step 2: ISCC System Registration Register for ISCC membership by completing the registration form on the
ISCC Certification website, which provides the ISCC Terms of Use and fee structure.
1. Internal Audit:
Prepare audit materials in-house and complete internal audit reports in accordance with
Step 3: Audit
ISCC CORSIA requirements. Required audit materials include, but are not limited to,
management documents, material balance record ledgers, and GHG calculation sheets.
2. Certification Body Audit:
a. Provide the necessary certificates, documents, data, and access to relevant

locations
b. Receive audit report and list of necessary corrective actions
c. Implement corrective measures within 40 days (if applicable)
Step 4: Issue the certificate 1. The certification body will forward the audit documentation to the ISCC
2. ISCC will review the audit documentation
3. ISCC publishes certificates on its official website
fication can still proceed, but issues must be corrected before the next ISCC CORSIA covers the current formally negotiated sustainability cri-
audit. Regular follow-up audits will also be conducted (RSB, 2020). teria under CORSIA; while ISCC CORSIA PLUS encompasses more com-
prehensive sustainability standards, including social standards (such as
workers’ rights) and good agricultural practices (such as pesticide use).
3.1.2. International sustainability & carbon certification (ISCC)
Specifically, it requires compliance with six sustainability standards
ISCC is an internationally recognized certification system. The
(ISCC):
ISCC certification system is audited on the following criteria: social sus-
tainability, eco-sustainability, GHG emissions testing, and supply chain • Safeguarding land with significance biodiversity value or high car-
traceability. In addition to the original ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS certifica- bon stocks;
tion systems, ISCC has designed ISCC CORSIA to ensure that SAF prod- • Practicing environmentally responsible production to protect soil,
ucts meet the requirements of CORSIA. ISCC CORSIA certifies a broad water, and air;
range of feedstocks for SAF production, including but not limited to, • Ensuring safe working conditions;
biomass and its waste, by-products, and residues from agriculture and • Upholding human, labor, and land rights along with fostering re-
forestry. Additionally, under this system, certified SAF products include sponsible community relations;
biofuels (liquid fuels produced from bio-based feedstocks and used in • Adhering to applicable laws and relevant international treaties;
transport), renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBO), and recy- • Implementing good management practices and committing to con-
cled carbon fuels. Table 4 shows the ISCC CORSIA certification process tinuous improvement.
(ISCC).
ISCC followed up with ISCC CORSIA PLUS. ISCC CORSIA and ISCC 3.2. ASTM’s routes standards
CORSIA PLUS have identical requirements on many levels, including
traceability and mass balance, GHG emissions, auditor requirements, To enable SAF to serve as a substitute for kerosene-based aviation
and registration and certification processes. The only difference is in fuel, the physical and chemical properties of SAF products are veri-
the scope of the sustainability requirements for biomass production. fied using the test facilities of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM)
11
Table 5
ASTM D1655 and ASTM D7566 standards (ASTM, 2020; 2022; Heyne et al., 2021).
Specification ASTM D1655 ASTM D7566
Total acidity (mg KOH/g) Max 0.1 0.1

Aromatics (vol.%) Max 25 25
Naphthenes (wt.%) Max 15 15
Carbon and hydrogen (wt.%) Max 99.5 99.5
Nitrogen content (mg/kg) Max 2 2
Water content (mg/kg) Max 75 75
Sulphur content (mg/kg) Max 0.3 0.3
Halogen content (mg/kg) Max 1 1
Final boiling point (°C) Max 300 300
Distillation temperature ( °C) Max 22 22
Flash Point ( °C) Max 38 38
Freezing point (°C) Max −40 (Jet A); −47 (Jet A-1) −40 (Jet A); −47 (Jet A-1)
−15 °C Density (kg/L) Max 775–840 775–840
−20 °C Viscosity (mm2 /s) Max 8 8
Energy density (MJ/kg) Max 42.8 42.8
Pressure drop (mmHg) Max 25 25
within the framework of ASTM standards: D4054, D7566, and D1655. the HEFA technology exhibits the lowest average MFSP, approximately
SAF is evaluated based on its performance, operability, and compati- $1.2 per liter. This is mainly due to its high yield (>1000 liters per
bility. For the SAF performance, the evaluation mainly includes mass ton) and relatively low investment costs (averaging $0.44 per liter).
and volume energy density, particulate emissions and thermal stability. The HEFA route primarily uses feedstocks such as vegetable oils, animal
These parameters determine the ability of SAF to be effectively used fats, and waste oils, which do not require complex pretreatment steps.
in aero-engines. The operability of SAF refers to its safety availability, Additionally, the production route features high conversion efficiency
particularly regarding cold starts at low temperatures and reignition at and minimal by-product generation, resulting in lower investment and
high altitudes under extreme conditions. Regarding SAF compatibility, O&M costs. On the other hand, the SIP route has an average MFSP of
this mainly concerns how SAF can be integrated with existing facili- $4.26 per liter, significantly higher than the other three routes, mainly
ties and engines without major modifications, particularly in airport due to its high investment costs. The SIP route involves converting sug-
infrastructure and aircraft engines. Table 5 outlines the requirements ars into isoolefins through microbial fermentation, followed by catalytic
of kerosene-based aviation fuel under ASTM D1655 and ASTM D7566 conversion to produce SAF. This route requires stringent operating con-
standards, which are also applicable to the requirements of produced ditions and high equipment standards, leading to higher investment and
SAF. O&M costs. Moreover, the SAF yield of the SIP route also depends on
As of April 2024, there are nine SAF production technology routes the fermentation yield and efficiency of the microorganisms used.
that have been approved by ASTM. The SAF produced through these Additionally, the difficulty of obtaining feedstock significantly im-
routes must be blended with kerosene-based aviation fuel (Jet A type) pacts the MFSP. For instance, the ATJ and SIP routes primarily use
in the range of 5–50 %. Currently, ASTM considers the HEFA route to energy crops as their main feedstock. Energy crops require substan-
be the most feasible production technology, with its technical maturity tial upfront investments, including irrigation, fertilization, and pesti-
reaching levels 8–9 by 2017. Additionally, the F-T route achieved a tech- cides, combined with long-distance transportation, which raises feed-
nological maturity level above 7 by 2019. The F-T route is also the only stock costs and results in a higher MFSP for these routes. In contrast,
ASTM-approved production route that allows the addition of aromatics the collection costs for municipal waste and agricultural residues are
to SAF, enhancing compatibility with aircraft engines. Table 6 lists the relatively low. Using these wastes can reduce the feedstock costs. Over-
SAF production routes that have been approved by ASTM to date. all, to promote the commercialization of routes for SAF, it is essential to
ASTM D4054 is the standard practice established by ASTM for evalu- optimize these routes while further reducing investment and feedstock
ating alternative aviation fuels and related fuel additives to ensure their costs to enhance their competitiveness in the future SAF market.
safety and reliable operation. The ASTM D4054 process can be broadly
divided into four steps, and it is led by the OEM. It is a stringent and 4.2. SAF technology readiness level analysis
intricate evaluation process (as shown in Table 7). Consequently, the
certification of SAF by ASTM typically takes 3–5 years and incurs total The main evaluation criteria for SAF production routes include tech-
costs ranging from $10–15 million. In January 2020, the ASTM D4054 nology readiness level (TRL), feedstock compatibility, and production
fast-track annex was approved, but the maximum blending ratio for fast- costs. As shown in Table 9, the HEFA route has the highest TRL, pri-
track certification is limited to below 10 %. marily due to its use of well-established hydrogenation technology in
the refining industry. This route involves hydrogenation and deoxy-
4. Techno-economic analysis of organic solid waste for genation under the action of catalysts, converting fatty acids into high-
sustainable aviation fuels quality hydrocarbons. However, the HEFA route also has relatively high
costs, mainly because it relies heavily on the collection and processing
4.1. Techno-economic analysis of SAF of costly animal and vegetable oils, and it has stringent equipment re-
quirements. The FT-SPK route also boasts high TRL. F-T technology has
Although any SAF that meets specific ASTM standards can replace decades of industrial application history, is well-established, and can
traditional kerosene-based aviation fuel, the economic viability and efficiently convert a variety of biomasses, such as energy crops, urban
business model of SAF are still being explored at this stage. Therefore, bio-waste, and agricultural residues, giving it a competitive economic
a techno-economic analysis is conducted to identify the strengths and advantage. The ATJ route similarly has a high TRL. The conversion
weaknesses of each SAF route, and then maximize their economic ben- route in ATJ includes dehydration of alcohols, olefin formation, and
efits (Shen et al., 2019). Table 8 shows the production capacity, invest- hydrogenation, all of which are well-established routes in the chemical
ment, operational and maintenance (O&M) costs, and minimum fuel industry. In contrast, the SIP route has a lower TRL and is still in the de-
selling price (MFSP) of mainstream SAF routes. As shown in Table 8, velopmental stage. The SIP route involves using genetically engineered
12
Table 6
SAF production routes approved by ASTM (Energy, 2024).
Route Approved Blending Feedstocks Description

limitation (%)
FT-SPK ASTM D7566 Annex A1, 50 Municipal waste, agricultural Woody biomass is converted to syngas by gasification, and
2009 and forestry waste, energy then the syngas is converted to SAF by the F-T route.
crops Approved by ASTM in June 2009
HEFA-SPK ASTM D7566 Annex A2, 50 Oil-containing substances Triglyceride feedstock is hydrotreated to break down long
2011 chain fatty acids, followed by hydroisomerisation and
hydrocracking. Approved by ASTM in July 2011
HFS-SIP ASTM D7566 Annex A3, 10 Sugars Conversion of sugars to hydrocarbons by microbial action.
2014 Approved by ASTM in June 2014
FT-SPK/A ASTM D7566 Annex A4, 50 Same as FT-SPK Syngas is converted to n-alkane kerosene and aromatic
2015 hydrocarbons by F-T synthesis. This is similar to FT-SPK
but with the addition of aromatics. Approved by ASTM in
November 2015
ATJ-SPK ASTM D7566 Annex A5, 50 Cellulosic biomass Conversion of cellulose or starch-containing alcohols into
2016 fuels that can be put directly into service through routes
such as dehydration, hydrogenation, oligomerization and
hydrotreating. Approved by ASTM: isobutanol in April
2016 and ethanol in June 2018 (blending ratio of 30 %).
CH-SK ASTM D7566 Annex A6, 50 Fatty acids, fatty acid esters, Also known as hydrothermal liquefaction, clean free fatty
2020 lipids of fats and oils acid oils from the treatment of waste or energy oils are
mixed with preheated feed water and fed into a catalytic
hydrothermal cracking reactor. Approved by ASTM
February 2020
HC–HEFA-SPK ASTM D7566 Annex A7, 10 Algal oil Conversion of triglycerides from Chlorella vulgaris into
2020 fuels and other fractionated products. Approved by ASTM
May 2020
F-T Co-processing ASTM D1655 Annex A1 5 F-T bio-crude In collaboration with the University of Dayton Research
Institute, ASTM approved the co-processing of 5 % F-T
synthetic crude oil with petroleum crude oil.
Table 7
ASTM D4054 evaluation process (ASTM, 2013; Heyne et al., 2021).
Phase Fuel Requirements Time Required (Months) Costs (/$10,000)

(Liters)
Review phase
Step 1: Review of fuel specification 40 6 5
characteristics
Step 2: Applicable-use review 40∼400
OEM review – 6∼12 35
Testing phase
Step 3: Component and bench testing 950∼40,000 24∼36 ∼400
Step 4: Aircraft and engine flight testing ∼850,000
OEM review – 6∼12 ∼100
Table 8
Production capacity, investment and O&M costs and MFSP for different SAF routes.
Route Feedstock Production Investment M$ ($/L) O&M Costs M$y−1 ( $/L) MFSP ($/L) Refs.
Capacity
(Lt−1 dry )
Forestry residues 271 0.65 0.61 0.92 (IRENA, 2016)

Municipal solid waste 148 1.24 0.28 1.53 (ICCT, 2019)
FT-SPK
Agricultural residues 148 1.24 0.73 1.98 (ICCT, 2019)
energy crop 148 1.24 0.90 2.15 (ICCT, 2019)
soybean oil 1060 0.59 0.78 1.08 (Noah, 2011)
palm oil 1111 0.34 0.79 1.13 (Noah, 2011)
HEFA
Palm fatty acid fraction 1111 0.34 0.73 1.07 (ICCT, 2019)
Waste cooking oil 1025 0.48 1.19 1.32 (de Jong et al., 2015b)
Forest residues 419.9 56.1 0.17 2.08 (IRENA, 2016)
wood chip 125 500 0.91 0.75 (Tan et al., 2017)
corn kernel 432 1.07 0.79 1.86 (ICCT, 2019)
ATJ sugar cane 580 0.79 1.07 1.86 (ICCT, 2019)
Agricultural residues 321 2.20 0.51 2.71 (ICCT, 2019)
energy crop 321 2.20 0.57 2.77 (ICCT, 2019)
corn stalks 200 198 0.55 3.08 (ICCT, 2019)
Agricultural residues 212 1973 1.2 2.17 (IRENA, 2016)
SIP sugar cane 370 128 2.32 4.29 (ICCT, 2019)
syrup 534 215 0.48 6.31 (de Jong et al., 2015b)
13
Table 9
TRL analysis of SAF route.
Route Feedstock TRL Compatibility Cost Refs.
FT-SPK Energy crops; municipal solid waste; agricultural residues 7–8 9 3–4 (Bioenergy, 2021; Forum, 2020; Nikita Pavlenko, 2021;
Pavlenko, 2021; Prussi et al., 2021)
HEFA Animal fats; used cooking oil 9 5–7 6–8 (Forum, 2020; Nikita Pavlenko, 2021; Pavlenko, 2021;
Prussi et al., 2021)
SIP Agricultural residues; sugar cane; fructose 5 5–7 6–8 (Bioenergy, 2021; Forum, 2020; Nikita Pavlenko, 2021;
Pavlenko, 2021; Prussi et al., 2021)
ATJ Forestry residues; wood chips; energy crops 7 4–6 3–4 (Bioenergy, 2021; Forum, 2020; Nikita Pavlenko, 2021)
CHJ soya 6 3 7–9 (Breuer et al., 2022)
HC–HEFA offtake 6 – 7–9 (Breuer et al., 2022)
∗
1–9 indicates a scale from lowest to highest, with 9 being the most mature technology.
Table 10 products. The MFSP is influenced by several factors, including feedstock

Yield and energy conversion of different routes for SAF production costs, equipment installation costs, investment costs, plant scale, route
(de Jong et al., 2015a; ICCT, 2019). efficiency, fuel yield, by-product prices, and hydrogen prices. Among
Production Ratio Energy Conversion Rate these, feedstock costs and hydrogen prices have a decisive impact on
Route (tons production/tons feedstock) (GJ output /GJ input) MFSP due to their direct relationship with production costs. Addition-
HEFA 0.83 0.77
ally, high initial investment and equipment installation costs can signif-
FT-SPK 0.22 0.91 icantly increase the MFSP. Conversely, improvements in plant scale and
ATJ 0.56 0.53 route efficiency can substantially reduce the unit cost of SAF products.
SIP 0.17 0.5 The cost of catalysts, compared to the aforementioned costs, constitutes
a smaller proportion of the total cost and thus has a weaker impact on
the MFSP. Table 11 lists the main factors affecting the MFSP of SAF
microorganisms, such as modified yeast or bacteria, to convert sugars products.
or other biomass into isoalkanes. This technology, being newer com- Fig. 11 shows the cost breakdown of different mainstream SAF pro-
pared to traditional chemical synthesis routes, faces major challenges duction routes. As illustrated, operating costs constitute the largest pro-
including the stability of microbial strains and the effective extraction portion of SAF production costs. This is due to the precision of the equip-
and purification of their products. Additionally, precise control of fer- ment used processes, such as reactors, separation facilities, and purifi-
mentation conditions, such as temperature, pH, and nutrient supply, in- cation systems, which require regular maintenance to ensure safety and
creases the complexity of its application. The high costs associated with efficiency. Notably, the HEFA and FT-SPK routes have higher operating
the SIP route mainly stem from the need for feedstock pretreatment, costs as the processes also generate by-products such as glycerol and
specialized fermentation facilities, and the high energy demands of fer- solid waxes during the preparation of SAF products. To handle these
mentation conditions. Currently, the CHJ and HC–HEFA routes are in by-products, additional separation and purification steps are needed,
the early stages of development, primarily using soybeans and algae as which increases their operating costs. Fig. 11 also highlights the wide
feedstocks, respectively. These routes require significant investment in variation in hydrogen-related costs among the routes. The HEFA route
equipment and technology. has the largest share of hydrogen-related costs, primarily because its
Table 10 shows the production ratios and energy conversion effi- core is hydroprocessing, which requires a large amount of hydrogen to
ciencies of different SAF routes. The HEFA route has a high production treat unsaturated fatty acids and produce saturated alkanes, resulting in
ratio (0.83), indicating its maturity and efficient conversion of vegetable high hydrogen demand. In terms of wastewater treatment costs, the SIP
oils and animal fats. Additionally, the HEFA route boasts a high energy route has the highest proportion. This is due to the reliance on micro-
conversion efficiency (0.77), which signifies minimal energy loss and bial fermentation in the SIP route, where the nutrients, enzymes, and
by-product generation during the hydrogenation process, thus maximiz- other biological additives produce a large amount of organic wastewa-
ing energy utilization. It is worth noting that the FT-SPK route, despite ter, which is challenging and expensive to treat.
having a high energy conversion efficiency (0.91), has a low produc-
tion ratio (0.22). This is due to the low selectivity of the F-T synthesis 5. Sustainability evaluation of organic solid waste for sustainable
route, which results in the conversion of feedstocks into heavy hydro- aviation fuels
carbons or other hydrocarbons that do not meet SAF requirements. The
ATJ route has a production ratio and energy conversion efficiency of 5.1. Environmental evaluation
0.56 and 0.53, respectively. In the ATJ route, the conversion of alcohol
feedstocks into hydrocarbons involves some energy loss, and part of the 5.1.1. Carbon footprint
feedstock is easily converted into water or CO2 . The SIP route has both To evaluate the environmental benefits of SAF production routes, a
low production ratios and energy conversion efficiencies. This is mainly comprehensive carbon footprint analysis is conducted to ensure their
due to its complex production route and numerous conversion steps, as environmental friendliness, compliance with regulatory requirements,
well as significant energy losses incurred in maintaining fermentation enhanced market competitiveness, and promotion of technological in-
conditions. novation. Specifically, carbon footprint analysis quantifies the green-
house gas emissions produced at every stage, from feedstock collec-
4.3. Sensitivity analysis tion to SAF production. It systematically assesses the environmental im-
pact of a product or route throughout its entire lifecycle. The results
MFSP is a key indicator for assessing the commercialization poten- are expressed in grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule (gCO2 e/MJ),
tial of a fuel. It accounts for economic indicators such as internal rate an important metric for evaluating environmental impact, as shown in
of return and interest rate. A lower MFSP value indicates a more com- Table 12. The FT-SPK route has the lowest average carbon footprint
petitive investment prospect for the fuel. For SAF products, the ideal value (7.9 gCO2 e/MJ). This route converts syngas into liquid hydro-
situation is that the MFSP is equal to or close to the sales price of tradi- carbons through F-T synthesis, achieving high carbon utilization. Often
tional kerosene-based aviation fuel, reflecting market acceptance of SAF combined with carbon capture and utilization technologies, the FT-SPK
14
Table 11
Main factors influencing the MFSP of SAF products (Atsonios et al., 2015; Tao et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018).
Positive Influence Negative Influence
Factors strongly influencing MFSP Feedstock cost, installation cost, Plant size, route efficiency, fuel
investment cost, hydrogen price production, by-product prices
Factors weakly influencing MFSP Catalyst costs –
Fig. 11. Main costs of different SAF routes (Crawford et al., 2016; Diederichs et al., 2016). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Table 12
Carbon footprint of different SAF routes.
Route Feedstock Carbon Footprint Refs.

(gCO2 e/MJ)
FT-SPK Agricultural residues 7.7 (ICAO, 2022b)

Forestry residues 8.3 (de Jong et al., 2017)
Municipal solid waste 5.2 (ICAO, 2022b)
Herbaceous energy crops 10.4 (ICAO, 2022b)
HEFA Tallow 22.5 (Yoo et al., 2022)
Waste cooking oil 13.9 (Yoo et al., 2022)
Palm oil 37.4 (de Jong et al., 2017)
Corn oil 17.2 (ICAO, 2022b)
Soya bean oil 40.4 (Wang et al., 2019)
Rapeseed oil 47.4 (de Jong et al., 2017)
Wasabi oil 42 (ICAO, 2022b)
SIP Sugar cane 32.8 (ICAO, 2022b)
Beetroot 32.4 (ICAO, 2022b)
ATJ Sugar cane 24 (de Jong et al., 2017)
Agricultural residues 29.3 (de Jong et al., 2017)
Forestry residues 23.8 (de Jong et al., 2017)
Corn kernel 55.8 (Yoo et al., 2022)
Herbaceous energy crops 43.4 (Wang et al., 2019)
Syrup 65.7 (ICAO, 2022b)
route effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions by capturing CO2 It is worth noting that the carbon footprint values can vary signifi-
produced during the conversion. Additionally, the synthetic paraffinic cantly for the same route using different feedstocks. For instance, in the
kerosene generated by the FT-SPK route has a high energy density and HEFA route, when palm oil is used as a feedstock, the carbon footprint
excellent combustion performance, reducing carbon emissions during value is as high as 37.4 gCO2 e/MJ. In contrast, when waste cooking oil
aircraft operation. Conversely, the ATJ route has the highest average is used, the carbon footprint value drops to just 13.9 gCO2 e/MJ. These
carbon footprint value (40.3 gCO2 e/MJ). The ATJ route primarily uses differences are mainly due to the large-scale deforestation of tropical
energy crops as feedstock. The cultivation, harvesting, sugar conver- rainforests often associated with palm oil production, resulting in sig-
sion, and fermentation of energy crops are associated with high carbon nificant carbon sink losses. Additionally, the intensive use of fertilizers
emissions. Furthermore, converting alcohols into SAF involves dehydra- and pesticides in palm oil plantations further exacerbates the environ-
tion, olefination, and hydrogenation, all of which consume significant mental burden. Similarly, when the ATJ route uses sugarcane and mo-
amounts of energy, further increasing the carbon footprint. lasses as feedstocks, their carbon footprint values are more than twice
15
those of other feedstocks. This is because food crops require substan-

tial initial inputs, and their production often involves land-use changes.
In tropical regions, the cultivation of sugarcane and corn often leads to
deforestation of primary forests, increasing the carbon footprint of this
route.
3.73e + 15
3.69e + 15
3.47e + 15
nvPMnum
5.1.2. Pollutants
(#/kg)
Comparative analysis of particulate matter emissions of conventional kerosene-based aviation fuel with SAF (Corbin et al., 2022; Jasiński and Przysowa, 2024; Schripp et al., 2022).
Pollutants from aircraft engines are mainly particulate matter (PM),
which consists mainly of non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM) and
2737 ± 72
volatile particulate matter (vPM) (Gagné et al., 2021; Masiol and Har-
nvPMmass
(mg/kg)
rison, 2014). nvPM is found in high temperature engine exhaust and
436
289
382
is composed mainly of soot, carbon black, metal ash, and oxygen-
containing functional groups. These particles have a very small geo-
metric mean diameter, typically ranging from 15 to 60 nanometers.
nvPMnum ( #/kg)
vPM refers to particles that condense in engine exhaust gases and are
composed primarily of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrates,
5.32e + 15
4.39e + 15
4.53e + 15
and sulphates (ICAO, 2016b). Both nvPM and vPM are the main pol-
lutants produced by aircraft engines, significantly affecting air quality,
human health, and the global climate. Currently, ICAO has established
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for measuring the mass
1589 ± 18
nvPMmass
(mg/kg)
and number of nvPM emissions from aircraft engines with a maximum
354
198
271
rated thrust greater than 26.7 kg newtons (ICAO, 2018). While SARPs
have standardized the sampling and measurement methods for nvPM
(Kinsey et al., 2021; Lobo et al., 2015), there are still no standards for
nvPMnum ( #/kg)
vPM or total particulate matter (Lobo et al., 2020). Table 13 compares
the nvPM emissions of commercial aircraft engines using traditional
5.47e + 15
2.99e + 15
4.31e + 15
kerosene-based aviation fuel and SAF, specifically HEFA-SPK. This com-
parison takes into account various factors that influence fuel flow in
the aviation industry, such as the rate at which fuel is consumed by an
aircraft’s engines, measured in units like kilograms per hour (kg/hr).
1270 ± 47
nvPMmass
(mg/kg)
These factors include aircraft type, flight phase, engine efficiency, alti-
tude, speed, weight, and weather conditions. According to Table 13, the
258
109
151
use of SAF significantly reduces nvPM emissions. The nvPM emissions
of two different SAF blends are significantly lower than those of tradi-
tional kerosene-based aviation fuel under various engine power settings.
This difference is related to the feedstock composition and combustion nvPMnum (#/kg)
5.92e + 15
2.96e + 15
3.01e + 15
characteristics of SAF. Traditional kerosene-based aviation fuel is pri-
marily composed of complex hydrocarbons, while SAF contains more
oxygenates and fewer impurities such as sulfur, metals, and aromatics.
As a result, SAF produces less nvPM during combustion. Additionally,
nvPMmass
SAF burns more completely, generating fewer incomplete combustion

(mg/kg)
718 ± 4
products like black carbon. Since sulfur compounds promote the forma-
131
47
89
tion of black carbon and other nvPM during combustion, the extremely
Flight Parameters (Fuel flow kg/h)
low sulfur content of SAF further reduces the formation of sulfur com-
pounds and, consequently, black carbon (Durdina et al., 2021).
nvPMnum ( #/kg)
Moreover, different blending ratios of SAF exhibit varying levels of

6.31e + 15
2.79e + 15
2.99e + 15
nvPM emissions, with higher blending ratios showing superior environ-

mental benefits. High-blend SAF contains a relatively higher hydrogen
content. During combustion, SAF with a high hydrogen content pro-
duces more water, reducing the formation of carbon-based particulates,
nvPMmass
such as black carbon. Additionally, high-hydrogen-content fuels burn

(mg/kg)
378 ± 5
at lower and more uniform flame temperatures. Low-temperature com-

85
26
55
bustion helps decrease black carbon formation, while the uniform flame
structure enhances fuel combustion efficiency and reduces incomplete
combustion. In summary, high-hydrogen-content SAF effectively re-
kerosene-based aviation
duces nvPM emissions by improving combustion efficiency, optimizing

30 vol% HEFA-SPK
20 vol% HEAF-SPK
flame structure, and altering chemical reaction processes (Corbin et al.,

2022).
conventional
Table 13
5.2. Social benefits

Type
fuel
The social benefits of SAF application and production are primar-

ily reflected in the reuse of OSWs. Traditional methods for handling
OSWs include landfilling, incineration, composting, and anaerobic di-
gestion, each with specific methods, advantages, and disadvantages as
shown in Table 14. By utilizing OSWs and converting them into SAF,
16
Table 14
Conventional treatment of OSWs.
Method Description Problems Refs.
Landfill OSWs is deposited in specific areas and ➢ Leachate and landfill gas generated (Di Maria et al., 2016)
covered with soil for landfilling. during the landfill process may
contaminate groundwater and air.
➢ Requires a great deal of land, which
is hard to implement in areas with
limited land resources.
➢ High long-term management and
maintenance costs.
Incineration Combustion of OSWs at high ➢ CO2 and dioxins from the combustion (Mayer et al., 2020)
temperatures to produce heat for power process need to be strictly controlled.
or heat generation. ➢ High incineration equipment and
technology requirements. Leading to
high construction and operating costs.
Composting Biodegradation of OSWs through natural ➢ The processing cycle is long and (Guo et al., 2019)
or artificially controlled conditions to requires a lot of space and time.
produce organic fertilizers. ➢ There are specific requirements for
the type and nature of the waste,
making it unsuitable for all OSWs.
Anaerobic Biogas and digestate are produced by ➢ Treatment facilities and technologies (Khalid et al., 2011)
digestion microbial decomposition of OSWs under are more demanding and costly to
anaerobic conditions. build and maintain.
➢ The anaerobic fermentation process
requires tightly controlled operating
conditions.
the reliance on traditional waste treatment methods can be effectively due to factors such as production costs and conversion efficiency. Other
reduced. For example, the incineration of OSWs releases large amounts SAF production routes, remain in their early developmental stages. The
of harmful gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2 ), nitrogen oxides (NOx ) application of SAF is expected to continue expanding as the need for en-
and fine particulate matter, which are major contributors to air quality vironmental protection and sustainability intensifies. Collaborations be-
degradation (Tait et al., 2020). Additionally, landfilling OSWs leads to tween governments and the aviation industry are crucial to promoting
methane emissions and leachate infiltration into the soil. By converting the optimization of SAF-related technologies, especially in improving
OSWs into SAF, this practice alleviates the burden on traditional waste feedstock conversion efficiency and reducing production costs. Further-
treatment methods and mitigate these potential environmental issues, more, the development of SAF-related policies needs to be strengthened.
thereby protecting the health and safety of residents. This includes setting clear blending ratio targets and providing eco-
nomic incentives, which will help lower the market entry threshold for
6. Conclusion SAF and thus promote its broader application. In summary, the promo-
tion of SAF requires comprehensive international cooperation and the
With the growing demand for carbon emissions reduction in the avia- sharing of experiences in developing relevant technologies and policies.
tion industry, SAF has demonstrated significant potential across various This collaborative effort aims to build a unified standard and regulatory
dimensions, including market demand, production routes, technical eco- system for the global SAF market, ensuring the long-term sustainable de-
nomics, and environmental benefits. SAF presents a promising solution velopment of SAF technologies. By achieving this, the aviation industry
for the aviation sector’s carbon footprint reduction, as it can achieve up can realize its green transformation and carbon neutrality goals, mak-
to an 80 % reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared ing a substantial contribution to worldwide initiatives to lower carbon
to traditional kerosene-based aviation fuel. This substantial reduction is emissions and address climate change.
crucial for meeting international climate goals and mitigating the envi-
ronmental impact of aviation. Currently, the application of SAF is pri- 7. Outlook
marily led and promoted by the ICAO. However, the current production
levels of SAF are insufficient, and its share in the total amount of re- The full development of SAF presents numerous benefits that extend
newable fuels needs to be increased substantially to achieve the vision beyond significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. A mature
of replacing conventional kerosene-based aviation fuel by 2050. More- SAF market will foster energy security by reducing dependency on fossil
over, countries and regions at the forefront of SAF technology develop- fuels, thus enhancing geopolitical stability. The diversification of energy
ment and regulation, such as the EU, the U.S, and the UK, offer valu- sources will protect the aviation industry from the volatility of oil prices
able experiences that can be leveraged by other nations to promote the and supply disruptions.
application of SAF. Additionally, only SAF that meets the certification
requirements under the CORSIA framework and the ASTM standards 1. Economically, the expansion of SAF production can stimulate job
can be blended with or utilized alongside conventional kerosene-based creation and economic growth. Investments in SAF infrastructure,
aviation fuel. Different routes have been devised for the production of including production facilities and supply chains, will generate em-
SAF. Among these, the HEFA route stands out due to its adaptability to ployment opportunities and support local economies. Furthermore,
a variety of oil feedstocks, high yields, low MFSP and reduced carbon advancements in SAF technologies can spur innovation in related
emissions. These advantages have been demonstrated through compre- fields, promoting a broader transition towards a sustainable bioe-
hensive techno-economic and environmental benefit analysis, and the conomy.
HEFA route is currently in the commercialization stage. In contrast, the 2. Environmentally, widespread adoption of SAF will contribute to
FT-SPK and ATJ routes are still far from commercialization, primarily both carbon emission reductions and improved air quality by reduc-
17
ing particulate matter and sulfur emissions from aircraft. Traditional Alenezi, R., Baig, M., Wang, J., Santos, R., Leeke, G.A., 2010. Continuous flow hydrolysis
aviation fuels contribute substantially to global greenhouse gas emis- of sunflower oil for biodiesel. Energy Sources, Part A: Recov. Util. Environ. Eff. 32
(5), 460–468. doi:10.1080/15567030802612341.
sions, with the aviation sector accounting for about 2–3 % of global ASTM, 2013. ASTM D4054 Users’ Guide United States Standard.
CO2 emissions. SAF, with its potential to achieve up to an 80 % re- ASTM, 2020. D1655 − 20b, Standard Specification For Aviation Turbine Fuels. United
duction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, offers a viable path States Standard.
ASTM, 2022. ASTM D7566-22, Standard Specification For Aviation Turbine Fuel Contain-
to mitigating this impact. This reduction is achieved through vari- ing Synthesized Hydrocarbons. United States Standard.
ous means: Feedstock Utilization: SAF is often produced from re- Atsonios, K., Kougioumtzis, M.-A.D., Panopoulos, K., Kakaras, E., 2015. Alternative ther-
newable biomass or waste materials, which absorb CO2 during their mochemical routes for aviation biofuels via alcohols synthesis: process modeling, tech-
no-economic assessment and comparison. Appl. Energy 138 (C), 346–366.
growth phase. This creates a more balanced carbon cycle compared
Bank, T.W., 2022. Solid Waste Management. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
to fossil fuels. Improved Production Processes: Advances in pro- urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management.
duction technologies for SAF are continuously improving the effi- Bioenergy, I., 2021. Progress in Commercialization of Biojet /Sustainable Aviation
Fuels (SAF): technologies, potential and challenges. https://www.ieabioenergy.
ciency and reducing the carbon intensity of fuel production. Life-
com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IEA-Bioenergy-Task-39-Progress-in-the-
cycle Emissions: By considering the full lifecycle emissions from commercialisation-of-biojet-fuels-May-2021-1.pdf.
feedstock growth, processing, transportation, and combustion, SAF Breuer, J.L., Scholten, J., Koj, J.C., Schorn, F., Fiebrandt, M., Samsun, R.C., Albus, R.,
demonstrates a markedly lower carbon footprint compared to con- Görner, K., Stolten, D., Peters, R., 2022. An overview of promising alternative fuels
for road, rail, air, and inland waterway transport in Germany. Energies (Basel) 15 (4),
ventional jet fuel. These environmental benefits extend to non-CO2 1–65.
emissions as well. By reducing particulate matter and sulfur emis- Brooks, K.P., Snowden-Swan, L.J., Jones, S.B., Butcher, M.G., Lee, G.S.J., Anderson, D.M.,
sions, SAF contributes to better air quality and reduces the avia- Frye, J.G., Holladay, J.E., Owen, J., Harmon, L., Burton, F., Palou-Rivera, I., Plaza, J.,
Handler, R., Shonnard, D., 2016. Chapter 6 - low-carbon aviation fuel through the
tion industry’s overall environmental impact. This will have positive alcohol to jet pathway. In: Chuck, C.J. (Ed.), Biofuels For Aviation. Academic Press,
health impacts, particularly for communities near airports. pp. 109–150. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804568-8.00006-8.
3. Socially, the development of SAF supports global efforts towards Cabrera, E., de Sousa, J.M.M., 2022. Use of sustainable fuels in aviation—A review. 15
(7), 2440.
sustainable development goals, particularly those related to climate Chiodini, A., Bua, L., Carnelli, L., Zwart, R., Vreugdenhil, B., Vocciante, M., 2017.
action, affordable and clean energy, and industry innovation. By Enhancements in Biomass-to-Liquid processes: gasification aiming at high hy-
demonstrating a commitment to sustainability, the aviation indus- drogen/carbon monoxide ratios for direct Fischer-Tropsch synthesis applications.
Biomass Bioenergy 106, 104–114. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.08.022.
try can enhance its social license to operate, garnering support from
Choo, H.P., Liew, K.Y., Liu, H.F., Seng, C.E., 2001. Hydrogenation of palm olein cat-
stakeholders and the general public. alyzed by polymer stabilized Pt colloids. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 165 (1), 127–134.
doi:10.1016/S1381-1169 (00)00367-8.
In conclusion, the comprehensive development of SAF is not only a Corbin, J.C., Schripp, T., Anderson, B.E., Smallwood, G.J., LeClercq, P., Crosbie, E.C.,
critical component in the aviation sector’s strategy to achieve carbon Achterberg, S., Whitefield, P.D., Miake-Lye, R.C., Yu, Z., Freedman, A., Trueblood, M.,
Satterfield, D., Liu, W., Oßwald, P., Robinson, C., Shook, M.A., Moore, R.H., Lobo, P.,
neutrality but also a catalyst for broader environmental, economic, and 2022. Aircraft-engine particulate matter emissions from conventional and sustainable
social benefits. Through concerted efforts in technology development, aviation fuel combustion: comparison of measurement techniques for mass, number,
policy support, and international cooperation, SAF can play a pivotal and size. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 15 (10), 3223–3242. doi:10.5194/amt-15-3223-2022.
Crawford, J.T., Shan, C.W., Budsberg, E., Morgan, H., Bura, R., Gustafson, R., 2016. Hy-
role in shaping a sustainable future for global
drocarbon bio-jet fuel from bioconversion of poplar biomass: techno-economic assess-
ment. Biotechnol. Biofuels 9 (1), 141. doi:10.1186/s13068-016-0545-7.
Declaration of competing interest Davis, R., Biddy, M.J., Tan, E., Tao, L., Jones, S.B., 2013. Biological Conversion of Sugars
to Hydrocarbons Technology Pathway. United States.
de Jong, S., Antonissen, K., Hoefnagels, R., Lonza, L., Wang, M., Faaij, A., Junginger, M.,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 2017. Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel produc-
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence tion. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 10 (1), 64. doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0739-7.
de Jong, S., Hoefnagels, R., Faaij, A., Slade, R., Mawhood, R., Junginger, M., 2015a.
the work reported in this paper. The feasibility of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels – a com-
prehensive techno-economic comparison. Biofuel Bioprod. Biorefin. 9 (6), 778–800.
CRediT authorship contribution statement doi:10.1002/bbb.1613.
de Jong, S., Hoefnagels, R., Faaij, A.P.C., Slade, R., Mawhood, B., Junginger, M., 2015b.
The feasibility of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels - a com-
Bofan Wang: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, prehensive techno-econimic comparison. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin Adv Online Publ
Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data cura- doi:10.1002/bbb.1613.
Deloitte, 2023. China’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel: the Path to Carbon Neutral-
tion. Zhao Jia Ting: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, ity in the Aviation Industry. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/
Visualization, Methodology, Data curation. Ming Zhao: Supervision, Documents/energy-resources/deloitte-cn-saf-zh-230922.pdf.
Project administration, Conceptualization. Di Maria, F., Micale, C., Sisani, L., Rotondi, L., 2016. Treatment of mechanically sorted or-
ganic waste by bioreactor landfill: experimental results and preliminary comparative
impact assessment with biostabilization and conventional landfill. Waste Manage. 55,
Fund projects 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.033.
Diederichs, G.W., Ali Mandegari, M., Farzad, S., Görgens, J.F., 2016. Techno-economic
comparison of biojet fuel production from lignocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane
Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program juice. Bioresour. Technol. 216, 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.090.
of China (2023YFE0206000). Durdina, L., Brem, B.T., Elser, M., Schönenberger, D., Siegerist, F., Anet, J.G., 2021. Re-
duction of nonvolatile particulate matter emissions of a commercial turbofan engine
at the ground level from the use of a sustainable aviation fuel blend. Environ. Sci.
Supplementary materials Technol. 55 (21), 14576–14585. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04744.
Dusséaux, S., Croux, C., Soucaille, P., Meynial-Salles, I., 2013. Metabolic engineering
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in of Clostridium acetobutylicum ATCC 824 for the high-yield production of a bio-
fuel composed of an isopropanol/butanol/ethanol mixture. Metab. Eng. 18, 1–8.
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100263. doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2013.03.003.
Emmanouilidou, E., Mitkidou, S., Agapiou, A., Kokkinos, N., 2023. Solid waste biomass
References as a potential feedstock for producing sustainable aviation fuel: a systematic review.
Renew. Energy 206. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.113.
Abrantes, I., Ferreira, A.F., Silva, A., Costa, M., 2021. Sustainable aviation fuels and im- Energy, O.o.E.E.R., 2023. Sustainable aviation fuels: bioenergy technologies office.
minent technologies - CO2 emissions evolution towards 2050. J. Clean. Prod. 313, https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/sustainable-aviation-fuels.
127937. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127937. Energy, T.S., 2022. Jet fuel demand: by region and forecasts to 2050? https://
Administration, F.A., 2021. United States 2021 aviation climate action plan. thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/global-jet-fuel-demand-by-region-and-forecasts/.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/Aviation_Climate_Action_Plan.pdf. Energy, U.S.D.o., 2021. U.S., Memorandum of Understanding Sustainable Fuel Grand
Ail, S.S., Dasappa, S., 2016. Biomass to liquid transportation fuel via Fischer Tropsch Challenge among the U.S. Department of Energy. the U.S. Department of Trans-
synthesis – Technology review and current scenario. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, portation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.energy.gov/
267–286. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.143. sites/default/files/2021-09/S1-Signed-SAF-MOU-9-08-21_0.pdf.
18
Energy, U.S.D.o., 2024. Sustainable Aviation Fuel. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ S5pY2FvLmludC9wcm9kdWN0LzQ0NjY5NyUzRl9nbCUzRDEqc3dhcXVvKl9nYSp

sustainable-aviation-fuel. NVEk0TmpBM09EZ3lOeTR4TnpFd01qTTFOemN6Kl9nYV85OTJOM1lETEJRKk1UY
FAO, 2020. Livestock and environment statistics: manure and greenhouse gas emis- 3hOVEUxT1RJMU1TNHhNQzR4TGpFM01UVXhOalEyTWpZdU1DNHdMakEu?
sions. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f0cebfdd-725e- productType=ebook.
4d7a-8e14-3ba8fb1486a7/content. ICAO, 2022a. CO2 Emissions Reduction Scenarios and Options for a Long-Term Global
FAO, 2022. Technical platform on the measurement and reduction of food loss and waste. Aspirational Goal for International Aviation. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/
https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/flw-data/en/. HLM-LTAG/Documents/HLM.LTAG.IP.06.en.pdf#search=Carbon%20dioxide%20
Forum, W.E., 2020. Clean skies for tomorrow sustainable aviation fuels as a pathway emission%20reductions%20from%20international%20civil%20aviation.
to net-zero aviation. https://www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/mckinsey/industries/ ICAO, 2022b. CORSIA Supporting Document: CORSIA Eligible Fuels – Life Cycle As-
travel%20transport%20and%20logistics/our%20insights/scaling%20sustainable% sessment Methodology. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/
20aviation%20fuel%20today%20for%20clean%20skies%20tomorrow/clean-skies- Documents/CORSIA_Eligible_Fuels/CORSIA_Supporting_Document_CORSIA%20
for-tomorrow.pdf. Eligible%20Fuels_LCA_Methodology_V5.pdf.
Fu, Q., Mabilat, C., Zahid, M., Brisse, A., Gautier, L., 2010. Syngas production via high- ICAO, 2022c. Guidance on Potential Policies and Coordinated Approaches for the Deploy-
temperature steam/CO2 co-electrolysis: an economic assessment. Energy Environ. Sci. ment of Sustainable Aviation Fuels. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/
3 (10), 1382–1397. doi:10.1039/C0EE00092B. Documents/SAF/Guidance%20on%20SAF%20policies%20-%20Version%202.pdf.
Gagné, S., Couillard, M., Gajdosechova, Z., Momenimovahed, A., Smallwood, G., ICAO, 2023. Guidance on Potential Policies and Coordinated Apporaches for the
Mester, Z., Thomson, K., Lobo, P., Corbin, J.C., 2021. Ash-decorated and ash-painted Deployment of Sustainable Aviation Fuels. https://www.icao.int/environmental-
soot from residual and distillate-fuel combustion in four marine engines and one protection/Documents/SAF/Guidance%20on%20SAF%20policies%20-%20Version%
aviation engine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55 (10), 6584–6593. doi:10.1021/acs.est. 202.pdf#search=Guidance%20on%20Potential%20Policies%20and%20Coordinated
0c07130. %20Approaches%20for%20the%20Deployment%20of%20Sustainable%20Aviation%
Główka, M., Wójcik, J., Boberski, P., Białecki, T., Gawron, B., Skolniak, M., Suchocki, T., 20Fuels.
2024. Sustainable aviation fuel – Comprehensive study on highly selective iso- ICCT, 2019. The Cost of Supporting Alternative Jet Fuels in the European Union.
merization route towards HEFA based bioadditives. Renew. Energy 220, 119696. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Alternative_jet_fuels_cost_EU_
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2023.119696. 20190320.pdf.
Goh, P., 2023. International civil aviation: the asia-pacific region prepares for sustainable IEA, 2020. Global Aviation Fuel Consumption, 2013-2021. https://www.iea.org/data-
development. https://www.sohu.com/a/662403993_121123704. and-statistics/charts/global-aviation-fuel-consumption-2013-2021.
Gray, D., Sato, S., Garcia, F., Eppler, R., Cherry, J., 2014. Integrated Biorefinery Project IRENA, 2016. Innovation Outlook: Advanced Liquid Biofuels. https://www.irena.
Summary Final Report - Public Version. Amyris, Inc., United States. org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2016/IRENA_Innovation_Outlook_
Guo, X.-x., Liu, H.-t., Wu, S.-b., 2019. Humic substances developed during organic waste Advanced_Liquid_Biofuels_2016.pdf.
composting: formation mechanisms, structural properties, and agronomic functions. IRS, 2023. Sustainable Aviation Fuel Credit; Registration; Certificates; Request for Public
Sci. Total Environ. 662, 501–510. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.137. Comments. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-06.pdf.
Han, G.B., Jang, J.H., Ahn, M.H., Suh, Y.-W., Choi, M., Park, N.-K., Lee, M.E., Kim, J.-K., ISCC, Certification Scheme: ISCC CORSIA. https://www.iscc-system.org/certification/
Jeong, B., 2021. Operation of bio-aviation fuel manufacturing facility via hydropro- iscc-certification-schemes/iscc-corsia/.
cessed esters and fatty acids process and optimization of fuel property for turbine en- ISCC, What is the difference between ISCC CORSIA and ISCC CORSIA PLUS?
gine test. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 38 (6), 1205–1223. doi:10.1007/s11814-021-0770-z. https://www.iscc-system.org/certification/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-iscc-
Hanaoka, T., Miyazawa, T., Shimura, K., Hirata, S., 2015. Jet fuel synthesis from Fischer– corsia-and-iscc-corsia-plus/.
Tropsch product under mild hydrocracking conditions using Pt-loaded catalysts. Jasiński, R., Przysowa, R., 2024. Evaluating the impact of using HEFA fuel on the partic-
Chem. Eng. J. 263, 178–185. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2014.11.042. ulate matter emissions from a turbine engine, energies.
Heyne, J., Rauch, B., Le Clercq, P., Colket, M., 2021. Sustainable aviation fuel prescreening Kerrebrock, J.L., 1992. Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines. MIT press.
tools and procedures. Fuel 290, 120004. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.120004. Khalid, A., Arshad, M., Anjum, M., Mahmood, T., Dawson, L., 2011. The anaer-
Huber, G.W., Iborra, S., Corma, A., 2006. Synthesis of transportation fuels from obic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Manage. 31 (8), 1737–1744.
biomass: chemistry, catalysts, and engineering. Chem. Rev. 106 (9), 4044–4098. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.021.
doi:10.1021/cr068360d. Kinsey, J.S., Giannelli, R., Howard, R., Hoffman, B., Frazee, R., Aldridge, M., Leggett, C.,
IATA, Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Technical Certification. https://www.iata.org/ Stevens, K., Kittelson, D., Silvis, W., Stevens, J., Lobo, P., Achterberg, S., Swan-
contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saf-technical-certifications.pdf. son, J., Thomson, K., McArthur, T., Hagen, D., Trueblood, M., Wolff, L., Liscinsky, D.,
IATA, 2015. IATA Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap. https://www.iata.org/ Arey, R., Cerully, K., Miake-Lye, R., Onasch, T., Freedman, A., Bachalo, W., Payne, G.,
contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/safr-1-2015.pdf. Durlicki, M., 2021. Assessment of a regulatory measurement system for the determina-
IATA, 2021. Annual Review 2021. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/c81222d96c9a4e0 tion of the non-volatile particulate matter emissions from commercial aircraft engines.
bb4ff6ced0126f0bb/iata-annual-review-2021.pdf. J. Aerosol. Sci. 154, 105734. doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105734.
IATA, 2023a. International Air Transport Association: SAF Sales Increase but Klöwer, M., Allen, M., Lee, D., Proud, S., Gallagher, L., Skowron, A., 2021. Quanti-
Greater Supply is Needed. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/21fc5ddc2a6c fying aviation’s contribution to global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104027.
4159898c242fb55e2e94/2023-12-06-02-cn.pdf. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac286e.
IATA, 2023b. Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Hemant Mistry Director Net Zero Transition. Lane, J., 2015. Amyris, Total to commercialize renewable, low-carbon jet fuel technol-
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/presentations/saf-gmd2023/. ogy; Total takes 75% stake in JV. https://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2015/
IATA, 2024. SAF Production to Triple to 1.5 mil mt in 2024 but Progress Slow: IATA. 06/30/amyris-total-to-commercialize-renewable-low-carbon-jet-fuel-technology/.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/ Li, L., Coppola, E., Rine, J., Miller, J.L., Walker, D., 2010. Catalytic hydrothermal con-
oil/120623-saf-production-to-triple-to-15-mil-mt-in-2024-but-progress-slow-iata. version of triglycerides to non-ester. Biofuels. Energy Fuels 24 (2), 1305–1315.
ICAO, Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related doi:10.1021/ef901163a.
to environmental protection — Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for Liu, G., Yan, B., Chen, G., 2013a. Technical review on jet fuel production. Renew. Sustain.
International Aviation (CORSIA). https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ Energy Rev. 25, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.025.
CORSIA/Documents/Resolution_A41-22_CORSIA.pdf. Liu, K., Atiyeh, H., Stevenson, B., Tanner, R., Wilkins, M., Huhnke, R., 2013b. Mixed cul-
ICAO, CORSIA Eligible Fuels https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/ ture syngas fermentation and conversion of carboxylic acids into alcohols. Bioresour.
Pages/CORSIA-Eligible-Fuels.aspx. Technol. 152C, 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.015.
ICAO, SAF Feedstocks https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/SAF_ Lobo, P., Durdina, L., Brem, B.T., Crayford, A.P., Johnson, M.P., Smallwood, G.J.,
Feedstocks.aspx. Siegerist, F., Williams, P.I., Black, E.A., Llamedo, A., Thomson, K.A., Trueblood, M.B.,
ICAO, SAF Stocktaking - What is it about?. https://www.icao.int/environmental- Yu, Z., Hagen, D.E., Whitefield, P.D., Miake-Lye, R.C., Rindlisbacher, T., 2020.
protection/Pages/SAF_Stocktaking.aspx. Comparison of standardized sampling and measurement reference systems for air-
ICAO, 2009a. Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels. https://www. craft engine non-volatile particulate matter emissions. J. Aerosol. Sci. 145, 105557.
icao.int/Meetings/caaf2009/Documents/CAAF-09_WP009_en.pdf#search=CAAF%2 doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105557.
F09%2DWP%2F09. Lobo, P., Durdina, L., Smallwood, G.J., Rindlisbacher, T., Siegerist, F., Black, E.A., Yu, Z.,
ICAO, 2009b. Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations from the First Meet- Mensah, A.A., Hagen, D.E., Miake-Lye, R.C., Thomson, K.A., Brem, B.T., Corbin, J.C.,
ing. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/caaf2009/Documents/CAAF-09_SD001_en.pdf# Abegglen, M., Sierau, B., Whitefield, P.D., Wang, J., 2015. Measurement of aircraft
search=CAAF%2F09%2DSD%2F1. engine non-volatile pm emissions: results of the aviation-particle regulatory instru-
ICAO, 2016a. Civil Aviation and the Environment. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/ mentation demonstration experiment (A-PRIDE) 4 campaign. Aerosol. Sci. Technol.
a39/Documents/WP/wp_051_zh.pdf. 49 (7), 472–484. doi:10.1080/02786826.2015.1047012.
ICAO, 2016b. New Particulate Mater Standard For Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines. Maggi, R.E., Elliott, D.C., 1997. Upgrading overview. In: Bridgwater, A.V., Boocock, D.G.B.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentalReports/ (Eds.), Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion: Volume 1 /Vol-
2016/ENVReport2016_pg85-88.pdf. ume 2. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 575–588. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-
ICAO, 2017a. ICAO Regional Seminar on States’ Action Plans and Carbon offsetting 1559-6_45.
and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). https://www.icao.int/ Marker, T.L., 2005. Opportunities for Biorenewables in Oil Refineries. United States.
Meetings/RS2017/Pages/default.aspx. Martinez Hernandez, E., Ng, K.S., 2018. Design of biorefinery systems for conversion of
ICAO, 2017b. Second Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels: Definitions. corn stover into biofuels using a biorefinery engineering framework. Clean. Technol.
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/CAAF2/Documents/CAAF.2.WP.003.1.en.pdf# Environ. Policy 20 (7), 1501–1514. doi:10.1007/s10098-017-1477-z.
search=CAAF%2F2%2DWP%2F03. Masiol, M., Harrison, R.M., 2014. Aircraft engine exhaust emissions and other airport-
ICAO, 2018. Annex 16 — Environmental Protection - Volume IV - First Edition. related contributions to ambient air pollution: a review. Atmos. Environ. 95, 409–455.
https://elibrary.icao.int/reader/446697/&returnUrl%3DaHR0cHM6Ly9lbGlicmFye doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.070.
19
Mawhood, R., Gazis, E., de Jong, S., Hoefnagels, R., Slade, R., 2016. Produc- Strategy&, 2023. The Potential of Sustainable Aviation Fuels. https://www.
tion pathways for renewable jet fuel: a review of commercialization status strategyand.pwc.com/de/en/industries/aerospace-defense/sustainable-aviation-fuel.
and future prospects. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 10 (4), 462–484. doi:10.1002/ html.
bbb.1644. Tait, P.W., Brew, J., Che, A., Costanzo, A., Danyluk, A., Davis, M., Khalaf, A., McMa-
Mayer, F., Bhandari, R., Gäth, S.A., Himanshu, H., Stobernack, N., 2020. Eco- hon, K., Watson, A., Rowcliff, K., Bowles, D., 2020. The health impacts of waste
nomic and environmental life cycle assessment of organic waste treatment by incineration: a systematic review. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 44 (1), 40–48.
means of incineration and biogasification. Is source segregation of biowaste jus- doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12939.
tified in Germany? Sci. Total Environ. 721, 137731. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020. Tan, E.C.D., Snowden-Swan, L.J., Talmadge, M., Dutta, A., Jones, S., Ramasamy, K.K.,
137731. Gray, M., Dagle, R., Padmaperuma, A., Gerber, M., Sahir, A.H., Tao, L., Zhang, Y.,
Munoz, C., Van Gerpen, J., He, B.B., 2012. Production of renewable diesel fuel. 2017. Comparative techno-economic analysis and process design for indirect liquefac-
Neil Renninger, D.M., 2008. Fuel compositions comprising farnesane and farnesane tion pathways to distillate-range fuels via biomass-derived oxygenated intermediates
derivatives and method of making and using same. upgrading. Biofuel Bioprod. Biorefin 11 (1), 41–66. doi:10.1002/bbb.1710.
Nikita Pavlenko, S.S., 2021. Fueling flight: assessing the sustainability implications Tao, L., Milbrandt, A., Zhang, Y., Wang, W.-C., 2017. Techno-economic and resource
of alternative aviation fuels. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ analysis of hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 10 (1), 261.
Alternative-aviation-fuel-sustainability-mar2021.pdf. doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0945-3.
Noah, M., 2011. A techno-economic and environmental assessment of hydroprocessed Taylor, J.D., Jenni, M.M., Peters, M.W., 2010. Dehydration of fermented isobutanol for
renewable distillate fuels. the production of renewable chemicals and fuels. Top. Catal. 53 (15), 1224–1230.
Nygren, E., Aleklett, K., Höök, M., 2009. Aviation fuel and future oil production scenarios. doi:10.1007/s11244-010-9567-8.
Energy Policy 37 (10), 4003–4010. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.048. Transport, D.o., 2022. Jet Zero Strategy Delivering net zero aviation by 2050
Oldani, N.B.A., 2023. Federal aviation administration of U.S. sustainable administra- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62e931d48fa8f5033896888a/jet-
tion aviation fuels https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-03/508.20220322_ zero-strategy.pdf.
1545_Brown_Oldani_SAF_Update_v04.pdf. Transport, D.o., 2023. Pathway to net zero aviation: developing the UK sustainable avi-
Parliament, N.E., 2023. Fit for 55: parliament and Council reach deal on greener aviation ation fuel mandate. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6424782560a
fuels. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230424IPR82023/ 35e00120cb13f/pathway-to-net-zero-aviation-developing-the-uk-sustainable-
fit-for-55-parliament-and-council-reach-deal-on-greener-aviation-fuels. aviation-fuel-mandate.pdf.
Patterson, T., 2022. Could SAF Be a cost-effective solution to rising aviation fuel prices? Undavalli, V.K., Khandelwal, B., 2021. Chapter 2 - General compositions and alternative
https://www.flyingmag.com/could-saf-be-a-cost-effective-solution-to-rising-aviation- aviation fuel approval process. In: Khandelwal, B. (Ed.), Aviation Fuels. Academic
fuel-prices/. Press, pp. 23–38. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-818314-4.00002-9.
Pavlenko, N., 2021. An assessment of the policy options for driving sustainable UNFCCC, 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
aviation fuels in the European Union. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/ https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/convchin.pdf.
2021/06/Sustainable-aviation-fuel-policy-eu-apr2021.pdf. UNFCCC, 1998. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Prussi, M., Lee, U., Wang, M., Malina, R., Valin, H., Taheripour, F., Velarde, C., Sta- Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpchinese.pdf.
ples, M.D., Lonza, L., Hileman, J.I., 2021. CORSIA: the first internationally adopted UNFCCC, 2015. Paris agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/chinese_paris_
approach to calculate life-cycle GHG emissions for aviation fuels. Renew. Sustain. agreement.pdf.
Energy Rev. 150, 111398. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111398. Wang, M., Dewil, R., Maniatis, K., Wheeldon, J., Tan, T., Baeyens, J., Fang, Y., 2019.
Realmonte, G., Drouet, L., Gambhir, A., Glynn, J., Hawkes, A., Köberle, A.C., Tavoni, M., Biomass-derived aviation fuels: challenges and perspective. Prog. Energy Combust.
2019. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation Sci. 74, 31–49. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2019.04.004.
pathways. Nat. Commun. 10 (1), 3277. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5. Wang, W.-C., 2016. Techno-economic analysis of a bio-refinery process for produc-
RSB, 2020. Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials. https://cogp.greentrade.org.tw/% ing Hydro-processed Renewable Jet fuel from Jatropha. Renew. Energy 95, 63–73.
E9%A9%97%E8%AD%89%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%BD/183. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.107.
Schripp, T., Anderson, B.E., Bauder, U., Rauch, B., Corbin, J.C., Smallwood, G.J., Wang, W.-C., Tao, L., 2016. Bio-jet fuel conversion technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Lobo, P., Crosbie, E.C., Shook, M.A., Miake-Lye, R.C., Yu, Z., Freedman, A., White- Rev. 53, 801–822. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.016.
field, P.D., Robinson, C.E., Achterberg, S.L., Köhler, M., Oßwald, P., Grein, T., Wang, W.-C., Tao, L., Markham, J., Zhang, Y., Tan, E., Batan, L., Warner, E., Biddy, M.,
Sauer, D., Voigt, C., Schlager, H., LeClercq, P., 2022. Aircraft engine particulate 2016. Review of biojet fuel conversion technologies. United States.
matter emissions from sustainable aviation fuels: results from ground-based mea- Wei, H., Liu, W., Chen, X., Yang, Q., Li, J., Chen, H., 2019. Renewable bio-jet fuel produc-
surements during the NASA/DLR campaign ECLIF2/ND-MAX. Fuel 325, 124764. tion for aviation: a review. Fuel 254, 115599. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2019.06.007.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124764. Yang, Z., Qian, K., Zhang, X., Lei, H., Xin, C., Zhang, Y., Qian, M., Villota, E., 2018. Process
Shen, R., Tao, L., Yang, B., 2019. Techno-economic analysis of jet-fuel produc- design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into jet fuel range
tion from biorefinery waste lignin. Biofuel Bioprod. Biorefin. 13 (3), 486–501. cycloalkanes. Energy 154. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.126.
doi:10.1002/bbb.1952. Yoo, E., Lee, U., Wang, M., 2022. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable avia-
Srinivas, S., Malik, R.K., Mahajani, S.M., 2007. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis using bio-syngas tion fuel through a net-zero carbon biofuel plant design. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 10
and CO2. Energy Sustain. Dev. 11 (4), 66–71. doi:10.1016/S0973-0826 (08)60411-1. (27), 8725–8732. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c00977.
20

SAF Tshingua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAF Tshingua

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

SAF Tshingua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Capture Science & Technology 13 (2024) 100263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Carbon Capture Science & Technology

Full Length Article

Sustainable aviation fuels: Key opportunities and challenges in lowering

1. Introduction production yield of kerosene-based aviation fuel is low, generally ac-

Stage Era/Year Policies/Matters Description Refs.

Kyoto Protocol ➢ Distinguishing between provisions for emission (UNFCCC, 1998)

➢ The INDCs mechanism has been proposed

➢ Airlines within the scope of CORSIA are required to

➢ CORSIA will be fully mandatory from 2027, with some

Fig. 4. HEFA route (Główka et al., 2024).

Fig. 5. ATJ route (Martinez Hernandez and Ng, 2018).

Fig. 7. SIP route (Davis et al., 2013; Mawhood et al., 2016).

Fig. 8. CH route (Li et al., 2010).

Fig. 9. HC–HEFA route (Cabrera and de Sousa, 2022).

Fig. 10. PTL route (Fu et al., 2010).

Step 1: Selection of validation criteria Select RSB CORSIA

a. Fill out the application form to register for RSB

a. Collect product-related information and content

a. Provide the necessary certiﬁcates, documents, data, and access to relevant

Speciﬁcation ASTM D1655 ASTM D7566

Total acidity (mg KOH/g) Max 0.1 0.1

Route Approved Blending Feedstocks Description

Phase Fuel Requirements Time Required (Months) Costs (/$10,000)

Forestry residues 271 0.65 0.61 0.92 (IRENA, 2016)

Route Feedstock TRL Compatibility Cost Refs.

Table 10 products. The MFSP is inﬂuenced by several factors, including feedstock

Positive Inﬂuence Negative Inﬂuence

Route Feedstock Carbon Footprint Refs.

FT-SPK Agricultural residues 7.7 (ICAO, 2022b)

those of other feedstocks. This is because food crops require substan-

SAF burns more completely, generating fewer incomplete combustion

Moreover, diﬀerent blending ratios of SAF exhibit varying levels of

nvPM emissions, with higher blending ratios showing superior environ-

such as black carbon. Additionally, high-hydrogen-content fuels burn

at lower and more uniform ﬂame temperatures. Low-temperature com-

duces nvPM emissions by improving combustion eﬃciency, optimizing

ﬂame structure, and altering chemical reaction processes (Corbin et al.,

5.2. Social beneﬁts

The social beneﬁts of SAF application and production are primar-

Method Description Problems Refs.

Energy, U.S.D.o., 2024. Sustainable Aviation Fuel. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ S5pY2FvLmludC9wcm9kdWN0LzQ0NjY5NyUzRl9nbCUzRDEqc3dhcXVvKl9nYSp

You might also like