Review

Methods for designing and assessing

biorefineries: Review
Valentina Aristizábal-Marulanda and Carlos A. Cardona Alzate, Instituto de Biotecnología y
Agroindustria, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Manizales,
Manizales, Colombia

Received January 16, 2018; revised November 07, 2018; accepted November 08, 2018
View online at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com);
DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1961; Biofuels. Bioprod. Bioref. (2018)

Abstract. This is a review of work on the potential of biorefineries. First, it considers the concept of
a refinery, the differences between biomass and oil, and the advantages of a biorefinery over a refin-
ery. It goes on to describe the bio-based economy and biorefinery concepts, and to discuss its origin
as a promising alternative to dependence on non-renewable feedstocks. It provides an exhaustive
description of the classification of biorefineries, considering aspects such as systems, technological
implementation status, size, feedstocks, platforms, products, and conversion processes. It outlines the
main methodologies for designing biorefineries – conceptual design, optimization, and the ‘early stage’
method. Methodologies for the economic, environmental, and social assessment of a biorefinery are
presented. Finally, challenges linked to the implementation of biorefinery projects at industrial level are
discussed. The authors conclude that the methodologies of conceptual design and optimization must
complement each other to achieve a robust design from a conceptual and mathematical point of view.
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: biorefinery; feedstocks; products; transformation routes; design; assessment

The refinery concept to the emission of greenhouse gases, the existence of new
reservoirs and technologies (fracking), and competition

A
n oil refinery is defined as an industrial platform that
has, as its main goal, refining oil to obtain fuels for
transport using combustion engine (e.g., gasoline and
jet fuel), high-value chemicals, and petrochemical raw materi-
als. Refineries appeared in the 1940s and illustrate the vitality
of the chemical industry. Currently, about 85% by mass of
refined oil in the refineries corresponds to fuels. The remain-
ing 15% consists of other products.1 All fractions of oil are
used to obtain different products. There are two types of refin-
eries: state and private. All refineries use technologies that are
optimized and highly predictable – mature technologies.2
In recent years, this industry has been affected by fluc-
tuations in the oil price, high levels of pollution linked
with emerging markets. These factors have led to a search
for alternative feedstocks that are widely available, renew-
able, and that are relatively low in cost. Biomass appeared
to be a promising raw material with these characteristics.
It can be transformed by different conversion methods, in
a biorefinery, into products, including food and feed.
The differences between biomass and oil as raw materials
are:3
• Crude oil is found in nature just in one form; it is there-
fore a homogeneous raw material. On the other hand,
biomass is a heterogeneous raw material that can be
found in a wide variety of forms with different origins.

Correspondence to: Carlos A. Cardona Alzate, Instituto de Biotecnología y Agroindustria, Departamento de Ingeniería Química,
Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Manizales, Manizales, Colombia. E-mail: ccardonaal@unal.edu.co

© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
• Crude oil is found in nature in specific and limited
places, whereas biomass can be found in almost any
place where there are crops, forests, and living beings.
• Compared to oil, biomass is composed mainly of oxy-
gen, with lower fractions of carbon, hydrogen, and
sulfur.
• Biomass needs to be depolymerized through complex
procedures to access sugars contained in the biomass
easily for added value. On the other hand, it is only
necessary to remove water and impurities from oil for
it to be used in fractionation.
• Biomass has seasonal changes and so cannot be pro-
duced throughout the entire year. However, it can be
cultured in arid soil.
• Biomass needs to be stabilized before storage to guar-
antee continuous operation of the biorefinery.
• Biomass has fewer logistical restrictions than oil pro-
duction and use.
The advantages of a biorefinery compared with an oil
refinery are:1,2
• Biorefineries have higher capacity and configuration
flexibility.
• A biorefinery chooses the products considering differ-
ent factors such as raw material composition, process-
ing capacity, equipment, and market demand.
• Operating and product diversity allow production to be
changed over time and protect the biorefinery against
economic recession and seasonal demand cycles.
• A biorefinery can affect climate change, energy secu-
rity, and rural development in a positive way if it is
designed properly.3
However, the maturity level of technologies used in
a biorefinery is a critical issue. Refineries use very well
developed and commercialized technology. Logistical con-
siderations are important in guaranteeing the availability
of biomass in a biorefinery. In the case of refineries, the oil
supply is continuous, with few or no constraints. When
refineries were developed, no specific methodology for
identifying all the possible products, platforms, and tech-
nologies to use the oil was considered. Over time, trans-
formation routes were added to basic refining to exploit
both solid and gas fractions obtained at this stage. For this
reason, the purpose of this article is to discuss and review
the main barriers that biorefinery development encounters
today. Efficient strategies are needed to design biorefineries
considering the concept of sustainability to avoid repeat-
ing the mistakes found in oil refinery design, implementa-
tion, and operation (today this sector wants to replace oil
2 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
refineries with sustainable alternatives). With design as
the first step, it is possible to demonstrate the potential of
biorefineries.
Biobased economy (BBE) concept
To understand the origin of the biorefinery concept it is
necessary to consider other terms such as bioeconomy
(BE) and biobased economy (BBE). Generally, BE and
BBE are similar in definition but the first term focuses on
the global aspect and the second refers to the individual
aspect, the BE term comprises the BBE. Some definitions
given by different institutions are presented below:
According to the European Commission ‘The BE encom-
passes the production of renewable biological resources
and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based products
and bioenergy. It includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
food and pulp and paper production, as well as parts of
chemical, biotechnological and energy industries.’4
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) defines the BE as ‘the application of
biotechnology to primary production, health and industry,
where biotechnology contributes to a significant share of
economic output.’5
In the First Global Bioeconomy Summit in Berlin in
November 2015, coordinated by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of United Nations (FAO), the International
Advisory Committee on Bioeconomy defined BE as
‘knowledge-based production and utilization of biological
resources, biological processes and principles to sustainably
provide goods and services across all economic sectors.’6
The German Bioeconomy Council defined BE as ‘the
sustainable and innovative use of renewable resources to
provide food, feed and industrial products with enhanced
properties. Besides economic growth the BE aims for food
security, climate protection and conservation of scarce
natural resources.’7
The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines BE as
‘food and feed industries (agriculture, forestry, horticul-
ture, fisheries and aquaculture, plant and animal breeding,
the nutrition and beverage industry) + biobased economy’
and BBE as ‘non-food industries – chemical, material,
medicine, pulp + paper and wood industries + bioenergy
(including biorefineries).’8 The BE is the BBE plus the pro-
duction and use of food and feed.6
Why is the BBE developed? To answer this question factors
such as population growth, the increase in waste, climate
change, loss of biodiversity, and the depletion of resources
need to be considered. These are the starting points that led
to the search for an innovative alternative to oil to generate
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate
new products and services. The sun and wind can generate
energy in electrical form but cannot provide mass and car-
bon compounds or organic molecules. The carbon sources
are essential to obtain tangible products, and in recent years
oil has been the main feedstock for this. Biomass is a valu-
able alternative to oil and its use in industry is known as the
biobased economy. When a fossil feedstock such as oil is
used as a source for generating energy, chemicals, and fuels,
this is known as the fossil-based economy.
The fossil-based economy needs a transition state to pass
to the BBE. This state is driven by different considerations,
for example, economic, political, environmental, demo-
graphic, agricultural, and food. The challenge is to propose
an economy based on renewable resources that is techni-
cally, economically, environmentally, and socially feasible.
For example, raw materials such as sugar cane and coffee
are used as foods, but these crops contain large amounts of
biomass that can be valorized to obtain biobased products
such as biofuels, bioplastics, and biochemicals. This exam-
ple shows that the BBE is directly linked to food but does
not create any type of competition.
There is some controversy arising from the increase
in food prices as a consequence of the use of crops and
agricultural residues for energy and chemical production.
However, two facts should be considered. The first is the
competition for agricultural products that can be used
to produce biobased and food products. The second is,
the competition for the use of the agricultural sources.9
When the biorefinery includes some food and feed prod-
ucts, this controversy can be reformulated. Maltsoglou et
al. (2014)10 evaluated the effect of bioenergy production
and its close relationship with the concept of food secu-
rity. These authors studied the production of electricity
in Malawi using the Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS)
rapid appraisal methodology. The analysis assessed the
potential availability of biomass that is additional and /
or complementary to food, feed, and other uses, and also
the competition for resources and its negative impact on
food production. As a result, the authors reported that the
use of sunflower and soybean oils for electricity genera-
tion using straight vegetable oil as fuel is the most cost-
competitive option in comparison with other technologies
such as biomass gasification using corn cobs. The authors
found that rural electricity production was possible in the
Malawi context without affecting the food production and
income from the food industry. Nevertheless, they sug-
gest that there should be clear energy policies to ensure
development of the interconnected electricity production
in ways that do not interfere with other well established
technologies.10
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
The biorefinery concept
The construction of the BBE solves current difficulties
and promotes an environmentally friendly industry. The
biorefineries are the basis for building a BBE because they
provide opportunities in all economic sectors. However,
they need continuous innovation. The biorefineries are a
medium for achieving sustainable development in indus-
try through the production of value-added products from
biomass and they have the capacity to generate a wide
variety of bio-based products and bioenergy to nurture
the BBE. The most important definitions given for a biore-
finery and its evolution from stand-alone processes are
described below.
According to the IEA Bioenergy Task 42, a biorefin-
ery is defined as ‘the sustainable processing of biomass
into a spectrum of marketable products (chemicals and
materials) and energy (fuels, power and heat).’2 Systems
that include a biorefinery can be presented as a facility,
a cluster, a spectrum, or a process. A biorefinery is the
integrated processing of biomass to a range of products. It
considers upstream, midstream, and downstream aspects
in a process. For Task 42 a real biorefinery produces both
energy and non-energy products.
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
and the US Department of Energy, a biorefinery is ‘a
facility that integrates biomass conversion processes and
equipment to produce fuels, power, and value-added
chemicals from biomass’ and ‘an overall concept of a
promising plant where biomass feedstocks are converted
and extracted into a spectrum of valuable products.’
Euroview defines a biorefinery in terms of ‘integrated
bio-based industries, using a variety of technologies to
produce chemicals, biofuels, food and feed ingredients,
biomaterials (including fibers) and power from biomass
raw materials.’11
The authors’ own, more extensive definition is that ‘a
biorefinery is a complex system, where biomass is inte-
grally processed or fractionated to obtain more than one
product including bioenergy, biofuels, chemicals and high
value-added compounds that only can be extracted from
bio-based sources. The latter occurs after a comprehensive
study of the raw materials to be used and the creation of
a sustainable design based on the latest state-of-the-art
technologies and approaches, which include aspects of the
three pillars of sustainability.’12 This definition addresses
the need for the comprehensive design and analysis of the
biorefinery. Then, it is possible to reach the main goals of
the biorefineries: maximizing the value of the products
obtained from the biomass, to increase competitiveness
3
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
and prosperity in industry, to reduce the dependence of
many countries on fossil fuels, to reduce the emission of
greenhouse gases, and to stimulate regional and rural
development.12
A biorefinery is not totally a new concept because indus-
tries such as sugar, starch, pulp, and paper have used
technologies in similar way to a biorefinery approach.2,13,14
Nevertheless, economic and environmental factors have
been the drivers guiding the development of the biorefin-
ery concept.
The corn wet-milling industry is a clear example of the
evolution of a bio-based process. This began as a stand-
alone process and it has developed into a multiproduct
process – a biorefinery. This transformation occurred in the
1970s, when the corn wet-mill industry initially produced
starch as main product. The need to obtain value-added
products and the development of technologies were factors
that motivated the production of starch derivatives such
as glucose, maltose syrups, and high fructose corn syrup
(HFCS). These products represent 37% of the production
in US corn-wet milling and are used as platforms to pro-
duce citric acid, lactic acid, gluconic acid, and ethanol via
fermentation. Finally, in this industry, gluten, corn oil, corn
fiber, and feed are also obtained as byproducts.1,3
Some of the advantages of the biorefinery concept com-
pared with stand-alone processing concept are the following:1
• The creation of a variety of products in a biorefinery
reduces the production cost and hence the sale price.
• In a biorefinery, the sale price of the main product can
be reduced when other coproducts of higher value and
lower volume are obtained.
• The production cost of products that have a small mar-
ket is lower if they are produced in a biorefinery than
in a stand-alone process.
• Biorefineries can use all the components of raw materi-
als to generate a wide spectrum of coproducts and to
maximize the value of feedstocks.
• The links between processes in a biorefinery can pro-
vide benefits – for example, mass integration from one
process to another and energy integration (to satisfy
heat and power requirements).
• Common streams between processes can be combined
for the production of fermentable sugars. For example,
acid and enzymatic hydrolysis (two different processes)
can be combined to produce pentoses and hexoses.
• The possibility of obtaining different value-added
products in biorefineries addresses problems in the
market related to price fluctuation and in some cases
the appearance of unprofitable products.
4 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Classification of biorefineries
Biorefineries have been classified in different ways.
According to the literature, the classifications are (i) systems
or models, (ii) status of technological implementation, (iii)
size, and (iv) feedstocks, platforms, processes, and products.
Systems or models
According to Status Report Biorefinery 847,11 biorefiner-
ies can be classified as systems in seven different ways.
The basic concept is the conventional biorefinery (CBR).
Its production process concentrates on a main product
and does not make great efforts to generate other value-
added products.13 In some cases there is little difference
between CBR and stand-alone processing. For example,
in Colombia, in the late 20th century, the sugar industry,
based on cane only, aimed to obtain sugar and this type of
bioprocesses did not meet the criteria of the new biorefin-
ery concept. Currently, this industry produces sugar, etha-
nol, and electricity.
The extension of the CBR concept has provided a basis
for the evolution of six other types of biorefinery.11,15,16 The
main biorefinery types are presented in Table 1.
Status of technological implementation
Table 2 presents a description of biorefinery classification
considering the technological implementation status. Some
examples are given here to explain the concepts. (If read-
ers are interested in knowing about other cases, they can
consult the references listed here.2,3,17 A very comprehensive
paper covering this analysis for second-generation feed-
stock is reported by Obydenkova et al.)18 Currently, Beta
Renewables (the Crescentino Bioethanol Plant) is not a real
biorefinery under current definitions. Nevertheless, this case
is considered because this plant can upgrade to a biorefin-
ery, for example by using the residues of the process as a raw
material for the generation of other added-value products.
Size
The optimal size of a biorefinery generally depends on fac-
tors such as the nature of the feedstock, the type of products
that will be obtained, the feedstock flow that will be pro-
cessed, the location, and the technologies employed.15 The
biorefinery types are presented below according to their size.
• Small and medium-sized production facilities. These
are located in rural areas and are based on biotech pro-
cess. Local approach.
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate
Table 1. Description of biorefinery types.
Biorefinery type
Conventional Biorefineries (CBR)
Green Biorefineries (GBR)
Whole Crop Biorefineries (WCBR)
Ligno-Cellulosic Feedstock Biorefineries (LCFBR)
Marine Biorefineries (MBR)
Two Platform Concept Biorefineries (TPCBR)
Thermo-Chemical Biorefineries (TCBR)
• Large production facilities. These are linked to a net-
work of decentralized primary processing plants.
• Very large production facilities. These are located near
a port and use different types of biomass.
However, it is important to note that there are no objec-
tive criteria defining the boundaries between small and
large scales.
Feedstocks, platforms, processes and
products
Based on IEA Bioenergy – Task 42 Biorefining, biorefiner-
ies can be classified according to four features: feedstocks,
platforms, process and products.13,14,19
Feedstocks
The feedstocks are the starting point of a biorefinery, and
their provision should be renewable, consistent, and regu-
lar.3 Renewable feedstocks such as carbon sources can be
obtained from four sectors: agriculture, forestry, agroin-
dustrial and aquaculture. There are two main groups of
feedstocks, according to their origin, which are obtained
from these sectors.2,3 Figure 1 shows the classification of
feedstocks according to IEA Bioenergy – Task 42.2,20 The
two groups are:
• Dedicated energy crops. Plants that do not produce
food and are cultivated mainly for energy production.
• Biomass residues. Byproducts obtained from process-
ing biomass and that present considerable energy
potential.
Platforms
Platforms are the links between feedstocks and products.
This concept is similar to the concept of a platform as it
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Description
Based on existing industries such as the sugar, starch, vegetable oils, feed, food, pulp
and paper, and (petro)-chemical industry.
Use wet biomass such as green grasses and green crops.
Uses dry or wet milling of biomass. Cereals such as, corn and wheat.
Based on the fractionation of lignocellulosic biomass composed by cellulose, hemicel-
lulose and lignin.
Uses marine biomass as microalgae and macroalgae.
Considers platforms as sugar and syngas. The sugars are obtained by fractionation of
cellulose and hemicellulose and the syngas by thermochemical processes from lignin.
Based on several technologies as torrefaction, pyrolysis, gasification, etc.
is used in the petrochemical industry, where crude oil is
fractionated into intermediate products (e.g., naphtha)
to generate energy and chemicals. The platform products
are also known as pillars, bulk chemicals, bio platform
molecules (bPM), or building-block chemicals, and are the
basis for obtaining value-added products.3,20,21 The most
important platforms in the formulation of biorefineries are
described in Table 3.
Products
Biorefineries can be classified in two groups according to
their products: energy-driven biorefineries and product-
driven biorefineries.2,19,20
• Energy-driven biorefineries. The products are mainly
used for their energy content. The main products
are biofuels, power and/or heat. (i) Gaseous biofuels
(biogas, syngas, hydrogen, biomethane), (ii) solid bio-
fuels (pellets, lignin, charcoal), (iii) liquid biofuels (bio-
diesel, bioethanol, FT-fuels, bio-oil), and (iv) electricity
and heat.
• Product-driven biorefineries. Products are not used for
energy generation. (i) Chemicals (fine chemicals, build-
ing blocks), (ii) organic acids, (iii) polymers and resins,
(iv) biomaterials, (v) food and animal feed, and (vi)
fertilizers.
Some products can be classified as energy and biochemi-
cals. For example, bioethanol and biohydrogen can be
used in both ways. The target market should be identified
to know the product classification.
Conversion processes
Conversion processes aim to transform the feedstock in
energy and products. They can be categorized into four
groups: thermochemical, biochemical, chemical, and
5
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries

Table 2. Description of biorefinery classification based on the status of technological implementation.2,3,17

Generation Feedstocks Characteristics Example Real world
First (Simple or Agricultural and Low flexibility and Sugar-rich biomass con- Pomacle-Bazancourt Biorefinery
conventional) forestry biomass integration. version by fermentation for Feedstock. Sugar beet
(sugar, starch, High consumption of bio-ethanol production. Conversion technology. Hydrolysis, fermentation,
vegetable oil or food crops. Oil-rich biomass conver- extraction
animal fats) Competition between sion by transesterification Platform. Starch, C5/C6 sugars
food and biorefinery. for biodiesel production Products. Starch, glucose, animal feed, bioetha-
Deterioration in the soil nol, CO2
quality. Scale. Commercial (although it also covers pilot
plants and labs)
Location. Pomacle-Bazancourt (France)
BioWanze (Wanze Bioethanol Plant)
Feedstock. Wheat, sugar syrups
Conversion technology. Hydrolysis, fermentation
Platform. Starch, C5/C6 sugars
Products. Bioethanol, gluten, soluble protein
concentrate
Capacity (m3/year). 300000 ethanol
Scale. Commercial
Location. Wanze, Belgium
Second Lignocellulosic Intermediate flexibility Second generation biofu- Beta Renewables (Crescentino Bioethanol
(Advanced) biomass (resi- and integration. els (e.g., Fisher Tropsch Plant)
dues from agri- Significantly more (FT)-diesel from Feedstock. Giant reed, miscanthus, switch
culture, forestry abundant and diverse biomass and bioetha- grass, agricultural waste (straws)
and industry, than First generation nol from lignocellulosic Conversion technology. Hydrolysis,
and dedicated biomass. feedstock) fermentation
lignocellulosic Reduces dependence Platform. C5/C6 sugars, lignin, power and heat
crops) on food crops required Products. Bioethanol and animal feed
for first generation Capacity (tons year−1). 40 000 ethanol
biorefineries. Scale. Commercial
Improvements in the Location. Crescentino, Italy
cost of production. Fortum (Joensuu Bio-oil Plant)
Land-use efficiency Feedstock. Forest residues and other wood
and environmental based biomass
performance. Conversion technology. Pyrolysis 
Platform. Pyrolysis oil and heat and electricity
Products. Bio-oil and heat and electricity
Capacity (tons year−1): 50 000 bio-oil 
Scale. Commercial
Location. Lappeenranta, Finland
Third Agricultural, High flexibility and Algal biorefinery Sapphire Energy Inc.
(Advanced) organic waste integration. Feedstock. Algae
streams and Production of many Conversion technology. Algae
algae forms of clean energy. Primary product. Renewable hydrocarbon
Wide range of bio- Biofuel capacity (gal year−1). 1 000 000
based products. Scale. Demonstration
Value-added waste Location. Columbus, New Mexico, USA.
biomass. Gas Technology Institute – GTI
Technical resolution of Feedstock. Wood waste, corn stover and algae
waste treatment issues. Conversion technology. Thermochemical,
No competition with pyrolysis
traditional uses of first Primary product. Renewable hydrocarbons
and second generation Scale. Design
biomass. Location. Des Plaines, Illinois, USA.

6 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate

Figure 1. Feedstock classification. Adapted from Cherubini et al.20

Table 3. Platforms classification, description and examples.21

Platform Description Example
Syngas Mix of CO and H2 obtained by gasification of The base to produce lower alcohols (i.e., metha-
feedstocks nol), fuel (i.e., Fisher-Tropsch diesel) and chemicals.
Syngas can be submitted to a fermentation process
to obtain ethanol, methanol, ammonia, etc.
Biogas Mix of CH4 and CO2 obtained by anaerobic diges- The base to produce hydrogen by steam reforming.
tion of feedstocks The base to produce electricity and heat by combustion.
C6 sugar and C5/C6 sugars Glucose, fructose and galactose obtained by hydrol- The base to produce alcohols and organic acids by
ysis of sucrose, starch and lignocellulosic biomass. fermentation.
Xylose, arabinose obtained by hydrolysis of The base to produce biochemicals by reactions of
hemicellulose. dehydration, hydrogenation and oxidation.
Plant-based Oil and Algae Triglycerides generated from oleaginous plants such The base to produce biodiesel by transesterification.
oil as, palm, coconut, rapeseed, sunflower, soybean, Glycerol as main coproduct of biodiesel is the base
castor, etc., and microalgae and macroalgae. to produce propylene glycol, 1,3-propanediol, acrylic
acid, propylene by fermentation and anaerobic
digestion.
Organic solutions Solution rich in carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, Source of fuels and biochemicals by fermentation.
enzymes, organic acids, etc., obtained by pressing The press cake can be a potential basis to syngas,
of wet biomass. sugars and lignin platforms.
Lignin Component present in the cell walls of plants, and Involves the obtaining of syngas products (i.e.,
it is estimated that represents 30% of the organic methanol, ethanol, mixed alcohols, C1-C7 gasses),
carbon present in the biosphere. hydrocarbons (i.e., BTX, cyclohexane styrenes), phe-
nols, oxidized products (i.e., vanillin, aromatic acids,
aliphatic acids) and macromolecules (i.e., compos-
ites, adhesives, pharmaceuticals).
Pyrolysis oil Mixture of compounds of different size mol- Source of organic acids, phenols and furfural.
ecules. Biomass depolymerization at moderate
temperatures.

mechanical.2,15,20 Table 4 indicates examples for each con- is coffee cut-stems (CCS) and comes from the agricultural
version process and its description. sector as a lignocellulosic residue obtained in coffee process-
Figure 2 shows an example where the features described ing. This feedstock consists mainly of cellulose, hemicellu-
above are considered to formulate a biorefinery. The feedstock lose, and lignin. The biorefinery has as its goal the production

© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 7
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries

of ethanol, furfural, and hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). The
ethanol (biofuel) is classified as energy driven, and furfural
and HMF are classified as product driven – more exactly, as
fine chemicals and / or chemical building blocks. The CCS
biorefinery considers different conversion processes, start-
ing with mechanical processes such as milling, chemical
processes such as acid hydrolysis, and biochemical processes
such as enzymatic hydrolysis, to obtain the platforms for
C5/C6 sugars and C6 sugar. The C5/C6 sugars platform is
the basis for the production of furfural through a chemi-
cal process such as dehydration and mechanical / physical
processes such as extraction and distillation. The C6 sugar
platform is divided in two streams to generate ethanol
and HMF. In the case of ethanol, biochemical processes
such as fermentation and mechanical / physical processes
such as distillation are used. In the case of HMF, the same
conversion processes are involved that are used in furfural
production.

Table 4. Classification of conversion processes.

Process Technique Description
Thermo-chemical Combustion Thermal conversion of biomass in presence of an oxidant (normally O2) to produce CO2
and H2O
Gasification This technique consists in the thermal decomposition of biomass at high temperature
(>700 °C) with limited O2 levels to generate syngas (i.e., H2, CO, CO2 and CH4).
Hydrothermal upgrading Hydrothermal transformation of biomass in organic crude oil. In the process there is a
reduction of oxygen in the organic material from 40% until 10–15%.
Pyrolysis The biomass is submitted to intermediate temperatures (300–600 °C) in absence of oxy-
gen to obtain liquid pyrolytic oil (i.e., bio-oil), charcoal and light gases.
Biochemical Fermentation Uses microorganisms to transform a substrate in recoverable products (as alcohols and
organic acids) at low temperature and low reaction rate.
Anaerobic digestion The biomass is submitted to bacterial decomposition in absence of oxygen at 30–65 °C.
The main product obtained is biogas (i.e., CH4 and CO2)
Aerobic digestion The biomass is submitted to bacterial decomposition in presence of oxygen. This tech-
nique is applied in the sewage treatment.
Enzymatic processes Uses enzymes to transform a substrate in recoverable products (as alcohols and organic
acids) at low temperature and low reaction rate.
Chemical Catalytic processes A reaction where intervene a reagent or more, which has the presence a catalyst.
Pulping The process of making pulp, especially from wood, for use in the manufacture of paper,
cardboard, etc.
Esterification/ These reactions are the most common for the biodiesel production using KOH or NaOH as
Transesterification catalyst. The vegetable oils are converted in methyl or ethyl esters of fatty acids.
Hydrogenation Reaction between H2 and other compound or element to produce biomolecules, usually in
presence of a catalyst.
Hydrolysis This technique can use acids, alkalis, steam or enzymes to degrade the biomass in its
simple sugars.
Oxidation Oxygen combination with other elements. Process where there is apparent loss of elec-
trons or ions.
Other examples. Methanization, steam reforming, water electrolysis, water gas shift, etc.
Mechanical/ Pretreatment Process where occurs the conditioning of biomass for later to be transformed in added-
Physical value products.
Separation Method to achieve the separation of a chemical from a mixture, namely the purification of
an interesting product.
Distillation Separation process of a component from a liquid mixture by selective evaporation and
condensation
Milling Process for the particle size reduction of biomass. Pretreatment technique.
Supercritical fluid A supercritical fluid (supercritical conditions, temperature and pressure) is used to sepa-
rate one component (extractant) from other (matrix). Also, it can be used for extractions
from liquids.
Other examples. Pretreatment technique (pressing/disruption, fiber separation), extraction, etc.

8 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate

Figure 2. Coffee cut-stems: an example of the combination of the features for the
classification of a biorefinery according to Task 42.

Biorefinery design is based on a holistic approach. This strategy has been

Biomass can be transformed into many products through
many production routes. For this reason, it is essential to
implement a methodology, method, or model to choose
the optimal routes and the best products in a biorefinery.
The three methodologies for the design of biorefineries
developed until now are described below. Table 5 outlines
some works that consider conceptual design, optimization,
or the early stage method of biorefinery design.
Conceptual design
Conceptual design refers to an approach where new chal-
lenges are assumed, such as the inclusion of a wide range
of feedstocks, or the development of local and regional
areas. As this methodology includes a lot of factors it
applied widely in process engineering for the design of
chemical plants but not for the design of biorefineries.33,34
Characteristics such as availability, cost, and market
requirements are the basis for choosing feedstocks and
products. However, there are some constraints linked to
uses and applications. For example, value-added products
such as antioxidants have priority over energy products
such as biofuels.
Three types of analysis are included in the conceptual
design of a biorefinery: (i) technical, (ii) economic, and
(iii) environmental. The commercial robust software
packages (Aspen Plus, CHEMCAD, Pro II, and HYSYS)
are used as tools to generate the technical analysis based
on mass and energy balances. Most of this software can
include an economic module. For example, the Aspen
Process Economic Analyzer is used to calculate economic

© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 9
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
Table 5. Examples of works that consider the conceptual design, optimization or the early-stage method
as methodology to the biorefineries designing.
Description
Conceptual design
García et al.22 propose a techno-economic and
environmental assessment considering different
levels of integration are considered (e.g., mass
and energy integration, non-conventional tech-
nologies) along with the analysis of the process
scale to determine the economic profitability
and environmental impacts of the proposed
cases.
González et al.23 evaluated fruit-based biorefin-
eries subjected to conditions of the Amazonas
region, by using techno-economic and environ-
mental criteria (details of the biorefinery con-
figuration and to establish some understanding
about the economic aspects without address-
ing marketing aspects).
Moncada et al.24 used the conceptual design
methodology applied to a simulation procedure
in order to evaluate biorefinery schemes for all
the scenarios, using Aspen Plus software, that
include productivity analysis, energy calcula-
tions and economic evaluation for each process
configuration.
Optimization
Bao et al.25 propose a shortcut method to
screen potential transformation routes and
synthesize integrated biorefineries, considering
different objective functions (e.g., maximum
earnings, productivity, etc.).
Ponce-Ortega et al.26 indicate a general
approach for the optimal arrangement of
processing routes in a biorefinery including
sequential steps for the superstructure build-
ing and disjunctive programming models. The
approach grants the selection of optimal biore-
finery configuration considering a specific factor
(e.g., economic, environmental, social, etc.).
Pham and El-Halwagi27 present a systematic
approach that involves two stages, synthesis
and optimization, in order to generate the best
biorefinery configuration considering available
feedstocks and desired products.
This methodology involves various products
and processing routes with a multiobjective
optimization considering economic (e.g., net
present value) and environmental (e.g., carbon
efficiency) aspects.
10 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Study case
This methodology is used in order
to compare the stand-alone process
and biorefinery ways to produce
biodiesel, ethanol and butanol as
potential cases for bioenergy produc-
tion using fresh fruit bunches as raw
material.
The proposed methodology is
applied to Makambo (Theobroma
bicolor) biorefinery that considers
the obtaining of pasteurized pulp,
butter, residual cake (paste used as
a substitute for cacao), extract rich
in phenolic compounds, biogas and
biofertilizer.
This methodology is applied to a sug-
arcane biorefinery for the Colombian
case and two more scenarios for the
sugar, fuel ethanol, PHB, anthocya-
nins and electricity production.
This methodology is applied to dif-
ferent case studies where integrated
biorefineries are considered. The
integrated term refers to systems
that consider multiple transformation
routes and platforms.
The proposed methodology is
applied to a study case that com-
prises several processing routes for
bioalcohols production using ligno-
cellulosic biomass.
The optimization problem is formu-
lated as a mixed integer nonlinear
program (MINLP) and is solved using
BARON solver.
The proposed approach is applied to
a study case where various pathways
to produce alcohol from lignocellu-
losic biomass are considered.
This methodology is applied to
biorefineries that use numerous feed-
stocks and products. The optimiza-
tion problem is formulated as a mixed
integer nonlinear program (MINLP)
and is solved using BARON solver.
Key aspect Reference
This example uses the methodol- 22
ogy of Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) in order to carried out the
environmental assessment. LCA is
not commonly applied to biorefin-
eries, since it is long and tedious
work.
This case uses an Amazonian 23
exotic fruit for the generation of
added-value products.
This example considers different 24
conversion pathways as function
of feedstock distribution and tech-
nologies for products.
The methodology provides an 25
effective and quick solution to
select a transformation route.
This methodology has the con- 26
straint that does not allow the
selection of various conversion
routes simultaneously attractive
from economic and environmental
point of view.
This approach is similar to the 27
methodology indicated by Ponce-
Ortega et al.26
Kelloway and Daoutidis28 report a 28
similar approach that mentioned
Bao et al.25
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate

Table 5. (Continued)
Description
29 30
Bertran et al., Rosengart develop a method-
ology for synthesis and design of transforma-
tion routes based on 3-stage approach. In first
stage, the optimal transformation routes are
determined through the superstructure optimi-
zation. In second stage, design problems are
solved and improvement objectives are stab-
lished using integrated tools. Finally, in the third
stage, new option are created using the deter-
mined route and stablished objectives.
Early-stage method
Patel et al.31 proposed a methodology that is
Study case Key aspect Reference
29,30
This approach is applied to case Despite of this methodology pre-
studies as, biorefinery, carbon cap- sents excellent characteristics, it
ture utilization and adipic acid pro- does not consider the energy inte-
duction. The optimization problem is gration topic.
formulated as a Mixed-Integer Linear
Programming (MILP) systems that are
solved using CPLEX solver.
The methodology is applied to eight The methodology is applied to 31

based on a multi-criteria approach that consid-
ers five indicators in an only value. The indicators
involves aspects as, economic, environmental and
risks based on techno-economic and life cycle
assessments and green chemistry principles.
Moncada et al.32 indicated a method that com-
new bio-based process alternatives processes in stages of laboratory
of the CatchBio research consortium and expected future.
in the Netherlands.
The methodology is applied to three The methodology includes cata- 32

bines indicators describing economic, environ- study cases, catalytic conversion of lytic and biochemical conversion
mental, and operational aspects. The indicators bio-based syngas, biochemical conver- processes in biorefinery systems.
are combined in an only score and compared sion of carbohydrates and biochemical
with petrochemical processes. and catalytic conversion of glycerol.

results. Finally, the US-EPA Waste Reduction (WAR)
algorithm and / or GREENSCOPE or LCA studies allow
the environmental impact to be determined. Two types of
integration can be developed: (i) mass (using commercial
software) and (ii) energy (using pinch analysis or energy
analysis). Experimental data such as feedstock charac-
terization, reaction kinetics, yields, and operation condi-
tions, reported in the literature, are fed into the simula-
tion tools. A comparison between the results for different
scenarios can be made to choose those presenting the best
performance. Conceptual design applied to biorefiner-
ies comes from the synthesis of the chemical processes
approach.22,23,33–35 However, the approach is extended to
complex systems (i.e., biorefineries with multi-product
portfolios) because new elements are included. Three
concepts constitute the conceptual design: (i) hierarchy,
(ii) sequencing, and (iii) integration.12,33,36 These concepts
are interlinked and their combination leads to a process
synthesis approach to obtain biorefinery models. A brief
description of these concepts is presented below:
• Hierarchy. The hierarchy concept considers the hierar-
chical decomposition of the main elements in a biore-
finery such as feedstocks, products, and technologies.
The first analysis is focused on feedstocks and prod-
ucts, where the feedstock composition and possible
decomposition in platforms to generate a set of prod-
ucts is considered. The second analysis is focused on
the technologies and their critical points. An extension
of the well known onion diagram is used to design the
process schemes and processing routes that compose a
biorefinery.
• Sequencing. The sequencing concept establishes a logical
order step by step to associate transformation routes with
products. The implementation of this concept considers
factors such as (i) platforms, (ii) technological develop-
ments, and (iii) constraints on the quality of products.
The determination of the most promising sequences
requires systematic tools to identify routes, distributions,
platforms, and products with the best characteristics.
Optimization is used in decision making.
• Integration. This concept defines the possibilities of
integration between feedstocks, processing routes, and
products. Integration emphasizes the maximum use of
resources in the biorefinery. In the case of feedstocks,
the remaining streams of a process can be exploited in
other process to reduce waste streams. For processing
routes there are two types of integration – (i) mass and
(ii) energy – which are directly linked to economic and
environmental aspects.
Optimization
Optimization can help bioprocessing in the assessment
of the profitability of transformation routes and prod-
uct portfolios. Stakeholder value is maximized through

© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 11
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
the global optimization of the supply chain (SC). Many
authors have applied optimization methodology to the
design of all types of biorefineries, for example Martin
and Grossmann, 37 Sammons Jr et al., 38 Sammons Jr et
al., 39 Zondervan et al.,40 Santibañez-Aguilar et al.,41
Giarola et al.,42 Bao et al., 25 Ponce-Ortega et al., 26 Pham
and El-Halwagi, 27 You et al.,43 El-Halwagi et al.,44Wang et
al.,45 Tong et al.,46 Kelloway and Daoutidis, 28 Gong et al.,47
Santibañez-Aguilar et al.,48 Geraili et al.,49 Rizwan et al.,50
Belletante et al.,51 Hernández-Calderon et al.,52 Bertran et
al., 29 Rosengart.30 This methodology allows the assessment
of different optimization objectives such as maximizing
yield and profit, minimizing costs, minimizing waste or
fixed costs, and environmental impact.
The main steps of the optimization methodology of
superstructures are given below.38,39 The majority of
authors follow this order or make small changes.
1. To define the scope and complexity of the problem. A pro-
cess systems engineering (PSE) approach is needed to
solve the complexity of the product allocation problem in
the processing facilities. The complexity of the problem
does not allow it to be solved by heuristics or rules of
thumb. The PSE approach uses techniques such as process
integration and mathematical optimization to ensure
a target approach combining simulation and experi-
mental work. The PSE can ensure high economic and
social benefit, reducing the use of feedstocks and energy.
Optimization methodology involves the superstructure
concept, where all possible transformation routes to
obtain a product set are considered, maximizing the net
present value and minimizing environmental impact.
Mathematical optimization based on the framework
is carried out to fulfill the objectives mentioned before.
This allows the inclusion of techno-economic aspects,
information from experimental studies, modeling, and
simulation. The framework addresses issues such as
product prices, product amount, the best configura-
tion, and optimal conditions.
2. To integrate modeling and experimental data. A com-
plete and robust library composed by simulation mod-
els of transformation routes and a database of yields
is built in this step. Experimental results are used to
validate the simulations of processes made with com-
mercial software packages.
The proposal is to assess stand-alone processes (i.e.,
simulation models) that comprise the global biorefin-
ery considering these substeps: (i) Extraction of data
and knowledge from literature and experiments, (ii)
simulation of models using Aspen Plus, HYSYS, Pro II
12 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
and/or CHEMCAD, among others, (iii) validation of
performance of models, (iv) integration of processes
using tools as pinch analysis, thermal management,
and resource conservation strategies to optimize
the simulation models, (v) optimization of simula-
tion models considering the minimum use of utili-
ties, maximum use of resources, and reduction in
environmental impact, and vi) obtaining economic
data through cost estimation software and references,
supplier data, etc., and environmental data using the
US-EPA Waste Reduction (WAR) algorithm, SimaPro,
GREENSCOPE, databases, etc. In the validation step
(i.e., substep iii), when a process needs the use of a
solvent, techniques for molecular design should be
employed to select the best option from the environ-
mental and safety points of view.
The six substeps mentioned before are the basis for
generating a compact model library and performance
database and a superstructure of transformation routes
(a tree with all optimized models). This approach pro-
motes constant upgrading of models or inclusion of
new models, without changing the methodology.
3. To optimize the biorefinery. The optimization frame-
work considers a combination between the models
library and economic performance with a numerical
solver – a mixture of the following factors: (i) Objec-
tives of process design, (ii) processing super-structures,
(iii) constraints, (iv) a performance framework data-
base (economic potential), and (v) numerical solver
routines such as MILP (mixer integer linear program),
and MINLP (mixed integer non-linear program).
The optimization framework aims to identify the
solutions capable of maximizing the economic perfor-
mance and when the solution is positive, it passes to
the assessment of the environmental performance. If a
solution fulfills the environmental constraints, an opti-
mal process scheme has been identified. If the envi-
ronmental solution is negative, constraints are relaxed
until acceptable environmental results are achieved.
The ‘early stage’ method
The ‘early stage’ sustainability assessment method uses a
multi-objective decision framework for the preliminary
assessment of chemical processes at the laboratory stage.
This method allows chemical processes to be revised tak-
ing sustainability into account because a multi-criteria
approach is used, with a combination of economic, envi-
ronmental, safety and health indicators.53 However, this
approach is modified for bio-based processes and con-
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate
siders characteristics such as biomass pretreatment, co-
product numbers, risks, and comparison with equivalent
petrochemical counterparts.31,54,55
This approach applied to the design of biorefineries is an
alternative to methodologies such as (i) optimization of
superstructures and (ii) process engineering and concep-
tual design of processes.32,55 The early stage sustainability
assessment method applied to biorefineries has as its goal
the assessment biorefinery products systematically to
identify those with the best potential from a sustainability
point of view at an early design stage.32,55
The method enables the sustainability of catalytic and
chemical processes to be determined and identifies their
strengths and weaknesses. Three sustainability indicators
are considered: (i) economic constraints (EC), (ii) energy-
related impact of raw materials (EIRM), and (iii) process
complexity (PC). These indicators are grouped in a single
index with help of weighting factors to provide fast com-
parison and choosing of process.32,55 This method, applied
to the design of biorefineries, involves five steps:32
1. Modification of the method. Initially, the method is
applied to chemical processes and stand-alone bio-
based processes considering five indicators. Then, the
method is applied to biorefinery design (i.e., a combi-
nation of chemical, thermochemical, mechanical, and
biochemical processes) considering the three indicators
mentioned before.
2. Definition of the study cases. The definition of the study
cases is according to the literature revision and the
selection of chemicals, derivatives and platforms.
3. Data collection. The data collection is based on the
literature, databases, and analysis of stand-alone pro-
cesses.
4. Application of the method. In first place, sustainability
scores are estimated for stand-alone bioprocesses and
then a comparison with the reference system is made. The
method includes analysis of sensitivity and scenarios.
5. Analysis of results. The analysis of results considers the
classification of derivatives, comparison of platforms,
and identification of promising derivatives.
This method is closer to the conceptual design method,
using practically the same tools to provide the starting data.
Economic assessment
The economic assessment of a biorefinery focuses on the
calculation of the parameters that can determine its eco-
nomic feasibility. The main goal of economic assessment
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
applied to a biorefinery is to determine its economic and
social profitability. High profitability can generate benefits
at a social level to improve the quality of life of differ-
ent communities associated direct or indirectly with the
process.
Some useful parameters that can be used to calculate
the economic assessment of a biorefinery are capital cost
(or fixed capital investment), operating cost (operating
expenses), net present value (NPV), return on investment
(ROI), discounted payback period (DPBP), payback period
(PBP), internal rate of return (IRR), and gross margin (or
economic margin, profit margin),56–58 which can be esti-
mated using computer programs such as economic analyz-
ers.59 Plant capacity and mass and energy balances are the
basis for the estimation of costs. Operating costs include
raw material costs, plant location, labor, and utilities (i.e.,
steam, water, fuel, electricity). Raw material costs change
according to the availability and characteristics of the raw
materials. Utility charges are usually expressed as money
unit / ton, money unit/m3, money unit/MW, money unit/
kWh of utility.35 The money unit can be expressed in USD,
€ or any unit, depending on the location of the biorefinery
project or the needs of the evaluator, company, or market.
Environmental assessment
The environmental assessment is a methodological tool to
identify, assess, and enable decisions to be made about the
environmental impacts generated in a process or biore-
finery. In the literature there are methods that allow this
impact to be determined. In the case of a biorefinery, three
main methods are used and are mentioned below.
Physical-chemical analysis
The conventional assessment of bio-based processes from
an environmental point of view has been made with
physical-chemical techniques such as the determina-
tion of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical
oxygen demand (COD).60 Biochemical oxygen demand is
the content of biodegradable organic matter in the waste-
water of a process and it is measured by the amount of
oxygen required for the oxidation. The oxygen demand
is the result of three types of materials: organic carbonic
materials (useful as a source of feed by aerobic organisms),
oxidable nitrogen (derived of nitrogen organic compounds
such as sources of feed for bacteria), and chemical reduc-
tion compounds (ferrous ions, sulfites, sulfides). The COD
is the measure of oxygen equivalent to the content of
organic matter of a stream that is susceptible to oxidation
13
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
for a strong chemical oxidant. The oxidation under some
conditions of acidity, temperature, and time, transforms
the organic matter in carbon dioxide and water. Wilkie et
al.,61 Fava et al.,62 and Sanchez et al.63 are some authors
that have used these methods to determine the organic
burden in the wastewater streams of bio-based processes
and biorefineries.
Impact categories
The categorization of environmental impacts is promoted
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US-EPA) through the Waste Reduction Algorithm
(WAR) and the Gauging Reaction Effectiveness for the
Environmental Sustainability of Chemistries with a
Multi-Objective Process Evaluator (GREENSCOPE). The
GREENSCOPE tool is useful for quantifying process sus-
tainability and the generation of the life cycle inventory
(LCI). The analysis consider the mass and energy balances,
including input-output streams such as raw materials,
reagents, residues, and products, and the energy demand
by equipment. The WAR is based on the determination of
the potential environmental impact (PEI), which meas-
ures the average unrealized effect or impact that mass and
energy emissions would have on the environment.64 The
PEI considers impacts such as the human toxicity poten-
tial by ingestion (HTPI), the human toxicity potential by
exposure (HTPE), the aquatic toxicity potential (ATP), ter-
restrial toxicity potential (TTP), global warming potential
(GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), photo-chemical
oxidation potential (PCOP), and the acidification poten-
tial (AP). The WAR algorithm is mainly a tool to compare
process configurations,35 Lou et al.,65 Moncada et al.,66
Aristizábal et al.,67 and Moncada et al.68 are some authors
who have used this methodology to determine the PEI in
bio-based processes and biorefineries.
Environmental impact can also be categorized using the
Ecoinvent database, with impacts such as abiotic depletion
potential (ADP), global warming potential (GWP), ozone
layer depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxida-
tion potential (POCP), human toxicity potential (HTP),
eco-toxicity potential (ETP), acidification potential (AP),
eutrophication potential (EP), and comparison of eco-
efficiency. Eco-efficiency is defined as ‘emissions per unit
of output’, which represents the environmental intensity of
production.65
Life-cycle assessment (LCA)
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is defined as a method to
assess and determine the environmental impact of systems
14 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
and products. The LCA is the methodological approach
used most worldwide to carry out global assessments
(economic, energy, environmental, and social).69 With
the LCA it is possible to calculate the environmental dif-
ficulties associated with complex and multi-disciplinary
processes. This method can be applied to sectors as build-
ing, agriculture, transport, and engineering, among oth-
ers. Uihlein and Schebek,70 Cherubini and Jungmeier,71
Cavalett et al.,57 De Meester,72 and Karka et al.73 have
illustrated the relevance of this approach in the assessment
of biorefineries. In general terms, an LCA consists of four
stages:69
1. Goal definition. What is the goal? Which processes
include the LCA and how?
2. Inventory analysis of the LCA. Determination of input
and output flows and calculation of emissions for dif-
ferent environmental resources.
3. Impact analysis of the LCA. Classification and assess-
ment of results and comparison with standards, mod-
els, or known tools.
4. Interpretation of results. Results analysis, considering
the goal of the LCA and recommendations according
to the results.
Ahlgren et al.74 made a review of the main existing
standards and guidelines for LCA of biorefinery systems
(e.g., ISO 14040:2006, ISO 14044:2006, International
Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD), ISO 14025:2006,
etc.) and concluded that six key steps should be consid-
ered for the analysis. The key steps are mentioned and
explained below.
• Goal definition. This step determines the methodologi-
cal options that an LCA should consider. A clear goal
definition is necessary for the interpretation of the
results. Based on two standards, ISO 14040 and ISO
14044, the goal is composed of (i) reasons for the study
(formulation of research questions), (ii) accurate defini-
tion of the product, (iii) functional unit definition, (iv)
description of the system boundaries, (v) requirements
and assumptions, (vi) expected public. The formulation
of the questions is an important part in goal definition,
for the biorefineries case, these can be formulated con-
sidering the feedstock use and number of products. The
time horizons of the LCA should also be specified in
the goal and scope definition.
• Functional unit. Standards and guidelines define the
selection of functional units as a key aspect of the com-
parison of cases and the interpretation of results. Given
that the biorefinery considers more than one product,
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate
the selection of the functional unit is complex. The
functional unit is related to the goal definition and
therefore depends on the research questions. For exam-
ple, when the goal is comparison of the products of a
biorefinery, the products or the function of the prod-
ucts can be the functional unit. In a biorefinery the use
of more than two functions is normal and can be used
to compare stand-alone processes and biorefineries.
For study cases where various goals are considered,
different functional units should be used to fulfill the
goals.
• Allocation of biorefinery outputs. When two or more
products share a production system, a problem called
multifunctionality or allocation arises. This situation
occurs in a biorefinery where there are various main
products and the selection of the method to solve the
multifunctionality of the system plays an important
role in the results. The products obtained in a biore-
finery are diverse – they can be biofuels, biomaterials,
and food, among others. This diversity does not allow
a suitable allocation basis to be decided. In some cases,
classification as products, co-products, byproducts,
and waste is important as a basis for allocation.
• Allocation of feedstock. In the agriculture and forestry
sectors biomass has different presentation forms. For
example, a sugarcane crop has various residues, includ-
ing bagasse and leaves, and all can be used as biorefin-
ery feedstock. For this reason, from the feedstock point
of view, there is also a multifunctionality problem that
is a key step in the LCA of a biorefinery. The selection
of the allocation method has an important role in the
burdens allocated to the biorefinery feedstock.
• Land use.
• Biogenic carbon and timing of emissions.
The LCA is carried out in four ways: (i) gate-to-gate
analysis, where only obtaining the products is important,
(ii) cradle-to-gate analysis, where both the feedstock and
obtaining products are relevant, (iii) cradle-to-grave anal-
ysis, where the analysis mentioned before is included with
the market, use, and end of life of the product, and (iv)
cradle-to-cradle analysis, where the product is recycled
and fed to the system as feedstock.
Software and databases have been developed to carry
out the LCA. The most important are GaBi, EcoManager,
LCA1, LCAD, LIMS, LMS Eco-Inv. Tool, Bio-Grace,
SimaPro, TEMIS, and Umcon.
Table 6 presents examples of biorefineries assessed from
an economic and environmental perspective and their
respective results.
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Social assessment
The sustainability assessment of a bio-based process or
a biorefinery considers a set of results based on techni-
cal, economic, environmental, and social aspects.78,79 The
social assessment determines the impact of a bio-based
process or biorefinery in the community – on job genera-
tion, food supply, health, etc.80,81 The social assessment can
be carried out through the LCA applying the same four
steps mentioned in section on the environmental assess-
ment. Social assessment uses categories such as autonomy;
equality; participation and influence; safety; and secu-
rity and tranquility, among others. There are more than
600 indicators, which can be classified as qualitative or
quantitative.82
For example, Product Social Impact Life Cycle
Assessment (PSILCA) is a database used to perform social
life cycle assessments (SLCA) developed by GreenDelta.83
It includes different indicators related to social aspects and
it assesses different processes. It provides transparent and
up-to-date information on social aspects of product life
cycles for almost 15 000 industry sectors and commodities
and more than 50 social indicators. In fact, PSILCA can
be used to calculate and evaluate the social impacts caused
by different productive processes, such as stand-alone
processes and biorefineries, considering the entire product
life cycle. In this way, global supply chains, services, and
end use are considered to perform a social evaluation,
which aims to detect social hotspots.83 The PSICLA data-
base involves five stakeholders, 23 subcategories, and 88
indicators. The subcategories include child labor, forced
labor, fair salary, working time, discrimination, health
and safety, social benefits, legal Issues, workers’ rights, fair
competition, corruption, promoting social responsibility,
supplier relationships, contribution to economic develop-
ment, health and safety, and prevention and mitigation of
conflicts, among others. Indicators include: children in
employment, goods produced by forced labor, living wage
per month, hours of work per employee, occurrence of dis-
crimination, gender wage gap, accident rate at workplace,
and occupational risk, among others.83
Challenges of biorefineries
Biorefineries face some important challenges, which can
be technical, commercial, strategic, or environmental. The
most significant challenges are:13,84,85
• Most biorefineries are in the research-and-develop-
ment (R&D), pilot, or small-scale demonstration phase.
15
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
Table 6. Examples of biorefineries assessed from economic and environmental perspective.
Biorefinery Scenarios
Microalgae Scenario 1: Sugar, ethanol and
and sugarcane electricity.
biorefinery Scenario 2: Extension of
Scenario 1 that also considers
Chlorella sp. cultivation using
CO2-rich streams derived from
fermentation and cogenera-
tion systems. After microalgae
cultivation and harvesting, the
extracted oil is used as the raw
material to obtain biodiesel
and glycerol as additional
products.
Andes Berry Products: Phenolic com-
(Rubus glaucus pounds extracts, ethanol and
benth) biorefinery xylitol
Scenario 1: Base case.
Scenario 2: Base case plus
mass integration
Scenario 3: Base case plus
mass and energy integration
Scenario 4: Base case plus
cogeneration system
Sugarcane Scenarios proposed as func-
biorefinery tion of feedstock distribution
and
technologies
Scenario 1: Colombian base
case, sugar, fuel ethanol and
electricity.
Scenario 2 and 3: Sugar, fuel
ethanol, electricity, PHB and
anthocyanins.
Rejected banana Scenario 1: polyhydroxybu-
biorefinery tyrate (PHB).
Scenario 2: Glucose, ethanol
and PHB.
Scenario 3: Scenario 2 plus
mass and energy integration.
For this reason, an important challenge is the upgrad-
ing and evolution of these biorefineries to industrial
infrastructures and their integration into the market.
• Appropriate implementation of industrial biorefineries
requires mature technologies, starting with R&D tasks,
followed by pilot-plant tasks, demonstrations, and
deployment strategies.
16 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Economic results Environmental results Reference
75
For scenario 2 Scenario 2 has the
Total cost (M. USD year−1): 88.51 best performance from
Sales (M. USD year−1): 146.11 environmental and eco-
Net present value – NPV (M. USD year−1): nomic perspectives.
183.94 The PEI is 44.99 PEI/t
Profitability index: 1.24 of products, with the
Payout period (years): 4.27 potential to reduce CO2
Production costs emissions by 39% com-
Sugar (USD ton−1): 238.89 pared with Scenario 1.
Ethanol (USD L−1): 0.53
Electricity (USD (kWh)−1): 0.02
Biodiesel (USD L−1): 0.69
Glycerol (USD L−1): 902.84
76
The economic analysis PEI/kg of product for
revealed that the level of integration in the leaving PEI and PEI/kg
biorefinery significantly affected the costs. of product for gener-
Scenario 3 is the best from economic point ated PEI
of view. Scenario 1: 6.49 and
Total cost (M. USD year−1) −33.8
Scenario 1: 14.08 Scenario 2: 6.18 and
Scenario 2: 11.16 −34.1
Scenario 3: 9.71 Scenario 3: 0.603 and
Scenario 4: 11.87 −6.33
The sale to total production cost ratio was Scenario 4: 0.557 and
16.32, 20.59, 23.69 and 19.36 for scenarios −6.37
1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
24
The configuration with the best economic The GHG emissions
and environmental performance is the sce- represented as kg CO2
nario 3 that considers fuel ethanol and PHB eq per kg of processed
production from combined cane bagasse cane are 0.52, 1.30 and
and molasses. 0.78 for the first, the
The production costs for scenario 3 are second and the third
0.67, 0.42, 2.12 and 16.82 USD kg−1 for scenario respectively.
sugar, ethanol, PHB and anthocyanin,
respectively.
Economic margins for scenario 1, 2 and
3 are 24.45%, 33.23% and 41.27%,
respectively.
77
The biorefinery that considered the energy Kg total PEI/kg PHB and
and mass integration is the best, because kg CO2/kg PHB
this reduces the production cost and the Scenario 1: 0.5 and 2.5
negative environmental impacts. Scenario 2: 0.35 and 2.2
The production costs and economic mar- Scenario 3: 0.25 and 1.5
gins for scenario 3 are 1.6, 0.7 and 0.6
USD kg−1 and 106.2, 22.2 and 45.4% of
PHB, glucose and ethanol, respectively.
• A biorefinery should ensure that production output is
maximized and that consumption of inputs (reagents,
energy) is minimized.
• The characteristics and composition of biomass
should be well known to obtain optimal conver-
sion, optimal availability of biomass, and economic
benefit.
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate
• Lignin is the main residue of biomass processing (20–
30%) and it is normally used for energy generation. A
challenge for biorefineries is to transform this material
in value-added products using advanced technologies.
This can contribute to the success of biorefineries.
• The transformation of lignocellulosic biomass to simple
sugars needs the use of enzymes. The challenge is to
develop efficient and cheap enzymes to extract sugars
efficiently.
• Another challenge is the development of biochemical
and chemical catalysts with a high yield of the desired
product.
• Feedstock processing associated with densification and
conservation techniques, and the distribution network
of products, are presented as logistical challenges. In
the latter case, existing infrastructure can be used for
the transport of biofuels.
• The integration of bioproducts in current value chains,
and funding difficulties, are commercial challenges in
the industrialization of biorefineries.
• The biorefineries face challenges related to land-use
change and its impact on the emission of pollutants
and food security. When agricultural lands are used to
obtain energy crops, the food supply and biodiversity
can be affected.
• Many countries do not have established state poli-
cies regarding the use of biorefineries to reduce oil
dependence. These systems therefore face challenges
associated with financing and economic support for
technological development and for engineering solu-
tions to overcome obstacles to operating success and
industrial progress. Two examples of R&D programs,
in the USA and the EU, illustrate the benefits of state
initiatives. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
and US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Bioenergy
Technologies Office promote funding for research
into improving biorefinery technology through the
Integrated Biorefinery Optimization program.86 The
Biobased Industries Consortium (BIC) and the EU
operate a public-private partnership (PPP) to provide
funding programs to bio-based projects for rural
development European reindustrialization. The PPP
presents three main areas for action: (i) Feedstocks,
promoting a tenable biomass supply and constituting
innovative value chains; (ii) biorefineries, optimizing
transformation routes using R&D, and upscaling demo
and large-scale biorefineries; (iii) policies, products and
markets, optimizing policy structures and establishing
markets for bio-based products.87
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Conclusions and future research
work
It is clear that existing design methodologies appear to fail
in their purpose of providing sustainable biorefineries.
For example, the conceptual design strategy needs to be
optimized to consider possible alternatives, and the opti-
mization strategy requires conceptual design to establish
that the optimization bounds are in real, practical ranges
needed in industry. The biorefinery definition is also not
very clear; nor is it clear how to identify and guarantee
that a biorefinery is efficient.
Biorefinery design is important for achieving sustain-
ability at the technical, economic, environmental, and
social levels. A biorefinery should involve a large number
of alternatives to obtain the best processing line. If many
alternatives are not considered, the biorefinery’s process-
ing line is not guaranteed as the best.
Both at the academic and the industrial level, there
are still deficiencies in the understanding of biorefinery
design. Many authors are making great efforts in order
not to make the same mistakes when refineries are imple-
mented. When biorefineries first appeared, oil separation
was used only to obtain a few important products; 80%
was regarded as trash and there was no further technical
analysis of its processing. The evolution of the industry has
led to the addition of process lines and reduction of waste.
The main barriers to the development of future biorefin-
eries include: (i) The need to produce robust and efficient
design methodologies for most integrated biorefineries
(for greater sustainability); (ii) the need for technical,
economic, environmental, and social viability, and (iii)
ignorance of relevant theoretical concepts for building
biorefineries in a suitable way. Other barriers not dis-
cussed in this work are: (i) logistical strategies to address
the reasons why biomass supply chains can fail in any new
and large-scale project; (ii) government policies, which are
very important for further research and implementation of
these systems. Startup financial support from government
will be needed.
The authors intend to construct a methodological
approach for designing and assessing biorefineries, incor-
porating aspects of the well known conceptual design
and optimization methodologies. The authors consider
that these methodologies could complement each other
to generate promising alternatives. The authors also pro-
pose a study of the logistics and supply chain applied to
biorefineries and a review about government financial and
investment policies and the integration of this topic with
the so-called ‘bioeconomies’.
17
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the Departamento
Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación
(Colciencias), call 727 of 2015.
References
  1. Lynd LR, Wyman C, Laser M, Johnson D and Landucci R, Strategic
biorefinery analysis: analysis of biorefineries. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory – NREL. Report number: NREL/SR-510-35578,
Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado (2005). Available: http://www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/34895.pdf [September 2017].
  2. IEA Bioenergy, Task 42. Biorefineries: Adding Value to the
Sustainable Utilisation of Biomass (2009).
  3. Cherubini F, The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead
of oil for producing energy and chemicals. Energy Convers
Manage 51:1412–1421 (2010).
  4. European Commission, European strategy: innovating for
sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. Off J Eur Union
8:57–61 (2012).
  5. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development –
OECD, Chapter 1 – Defining the bioeconomy, in The Bioeconomy
to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda, OECD Publishing, Paris,
pp. 1–322 (2009).
  6. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, How
Sustainability is Addressed in Official Bioeconomy Strategies
at International, National, and Regional Leveles – An
Overview. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome (2016). Available: www.fao.org/energy
[September 2017].
  7. Landesgeschäftsstelle Bioökonomie, Baden-Württemberg,
Bioeconomy Research. (2016). Available: http://www.bioecon-
omy-research-bw.de/en/bioeconomy [September 2017].
  8. IEA Bioenergy Task 42, National BioEconomy Strategies IEA
Bioenergy Implementing Agreement Countries Bioeconomy
Survey 2014. (2014).
  9. Koizumi T, Biofuels and food security. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 52:829–841 (2015).
10. Maltsoglou I, Kojakovic A, Rincón LE, Felix E, Branca G, Valle
S et al., Combining bioenergy and food security: An approach
and rapid appraisal to guide bioenergy policy formulation.
Biomass Bioenergy 79:80–95 (2014).
11. Van Ree R and Annevelink B, Status Report Biorefinery 847. 2007.
12. Moncada JB, Aristizábal MV, Carlos A and Cardona A,
Design strategies for sustainable biorefineries. Biochem Eng J
116:122–134 (2016).
13. Diep NQ, Sakanishi K, Nakagoshi N, Fujimoto S, Minowa T
and Tran XD, Biorefinery: Concepts, current status, and devel-
opment trends. Int J Biomass Renew 1:1–8 (2012).
14. Sonnenberg A, Baars J and Hendrickx P, Brochure IEA
Bioenergy – Task 42 Biorefinery. (2013). Available: http://www.
biorefinery.nl/fileadmin/biorefinery/docs/Brochure_Totaal_
definitief_HR_opt.pdf [November 2017].
15. Clark J and Deswarte F, The biorefinery concept – an inte-
grated approach, in Introduction to Chemicals from Biomass.
Wiley, US, pp. 1–29 (2008).
16. Kamm B and Kamm M, Principles of biorefineries. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 64:137–145 (2004).
17. Jong E and De Jungmeier G, Biorefinery concepts in compari-
son to petrochemical refineries, in: Industrial Biorefineries and
White Biotechnology. Elsevier, US, pp. 3–33 (2015).
18 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
18. Obydenkova SV, Kouris PD, Hensen EJM, Heeres HJ and Boot
MD, Environmental economics of lignin derived transport
fuels. Bioresour Technol 243:589–599 (2017).
19. van Ree R and van Zeeland A, IEA Bioenergy – Task42
Biorefining. (2014). Available: http://www.ieabioenergy.
com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IEA-Bioenergy-Task42-
Biorefining-Brochure-SEP2014_LR.pdf [December 2017].
20. Cherubini F, Jungmeier G, Willisch M, Willke T, Skiadas I, Ree
Van R et al. Toward a common classification approach for
biorefinery systems. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 3:534–546
(2009).
21. IEA Bioenergy Task 42, Biobased Chemicals – Value Added
Products from Biorefineries. (2011). Available: http://www.
qibebt.ac.cn/xwzx/kydt/201202/P020120223409482956847.
pdf%5Cnhttp://www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/bio-
based-chemicals-value-added-products-from-biorefineries/
[December 2017].
22. García-Velásquez CA, Aristizábal-Marulanda V and Cardona
CA, Analysis of bioenergy production at different levels of inte-
gration in energy-driven biorefineries. Clean Technol Environ
Policy 20:1–15 (2018).
23. González AA, Moncada J, Idarraga A, Rosenberg M and
Cardona CA, Potential of the amazonian exotic fruit for biore-
fineries: The Theobroma bicolor (Makambo) case. Ind Crops
Prod 86:58–67 (2016).
24. Moncada J, El-Halwagi MM and Cardona CA , Techno-
economic analysis for a sugarcane biorefinery: Colombian
case. Bioresour Technol 135:533–543 (2013).
25. Bao B, Ng DKS, Tay DHS, Jiménez-Gutiérrez A and El-Halwagi
MM, A shortcut method for the preliminary synthesis of
process-technology pathways: An optimization approach and
application for the conceptual design of integrated biorefiner-
ies. Comput Chem Eng 35:1374–1383 (2011).
26. Ponce-Ortega JM, Pham V, El-Halwagi MM and El-Baz AA, A dis-
junctive programming formulation for the optimal design of biore-
finery configurations. Ind Eng Chem Res 51:3381–3400 (2012).
27. Pham V and El-Halwagi M, Process synthesis and optimization
of biorefinery configurations. AIChE J 58:1212–1221 (2012).
28. Kelloway A and Daoutidis P, Process synthesis of biore finer-
ies: Optimization of biomass conversion to fuels and chemi-
cals. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:5261–5273 (2014).
29. Bertran MO, Frauzem R, Sanchez-Arcilla AS, Zhang L,
Woodley JM and Gani R, A generic methodology for process-
ing route synthesis and design based on superstructure opti-
mization. Comput Chem Eng 106:892–910 (2017).
30. Rosengart A. Process Systems Engineering for Early-stage
Process Development: The Case of Sustainable Bio-derived
Adipic Acid. (2017).
31. Patel AD, Meesters K, den Uil H, de Jong E, Worrell E and Patel
MK, Early-stage comparative sustainability assessment of new
bio-based processes. ChemSusChem 6:1724–36 (2013).
32. Moncada J, Posada JA and Ramirez A , Early sustainability
assessment for potential confi gurations of integrated biorefi
neries. Screening platform chemicals. Biofuels, Bioprod
Biorefin 9:722–748 (2015).
33. Smith R, Chemical Process Design and Integration. McGraw
Hill, New York (2005).
34. Douglas JM, Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes.
McGraw-Hill, New York (1988).
35. Aristizábal MV, García CA and Cardona CA , Integrated pro-
duction of different types of bioenergy from oil palm through
biorefinery concept. Waste Biomass Valori 7:737–745 (2016).
Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate
36. Moncada Botero J, Design and evaluation of sustainable
biorefineries from feedstock in tropical regions. Master Thesis.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales campus.
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Manizales, Colombia (2012).
37. Martín M and Grossmann IE, On the systematic synthesis of
sustainable biorefineries. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:3044–3064
(2013).
38. Sammons N Jr, Eden M, Yuan W, Cullian H and Aksoy B, A
flexible framwork for optimal biorefinery product allocation.
Am Inst Chem Eng 4:349–354 (2007).
39. Sammons NE, Yuan W, Eden MR, Aksoy B and Cullinan HT,
Optimal biorefinery product allocation by combining process and
economic modeling. Chem Eng Res Des 86:800–808 (2008).
40. Zondervan E, Nawaz M, Haan AB, De Woodley JM and Gani
R, Optimal design of a multi-product biorefinery system.
Comput Chem Eng 35:1752–1766 (2011).
41. Santibañez-Aguilar JE, González-Campos JB, Ponce-Ortega JM,
Serna-González M and El-Halwagi MM, Optimal planning of a
biomass conversion system considering economic and environ-
mental aspects. Ind Eng Chem Res 50:8558–8570 (2011).
42. Giarola S, Zamboni A and Bezzo F, Spatially explicit multi-
objective optimisation for design and planning of hybrid first
and second generation biorefineries. Comput Chem Eng
35:1782–1797 (2011).
43. You F, Tao L, Graziano DJ and Snyder SW, Optimal design of
sustainable cellulosic biofuels sypply chains: Multiobjective
optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and input-
output analysis. AIChE J 58:1157–1180 (2012).
44. El-Halwagi AM, Rosas C, Ponce-Ortega JM, Jiménez-
Gutierrez A, Sam Mannan M and El-Halwagi MM, Multi-
objective optimization of biorefineries with economic ans
safety objectives. AIChE J 59:2427–2434 (2013).
45. Wang B, Gebreslassie BH and You F, Sustainable design and
synthesis of hydrocarbon biorefinery via gasification pathway:
Integrated life cycle assessment and technoeconomic analy-
sis with multiobjective superstructure optimization. Comput
Chem Eng 52:55–76 (2013).
46. Tong K, Gong J, Yue D and You F, Stochastic programming
approach to optimal design and operations of integrated
hydrocarbon biofuel and petroleum supply chains. ACS
Sustain Chem Eng 2:49–61 (2014).
47. Gong J and You F, Optimal design and synthesis of algal
biorefinery processes for biological carbon sequestration and
utilization with zero direct greenhouse gas emissions: MINLP
model and global optimization algorithm. Ind Eng Chem Res
53:1563–1579 (2014).
48. Santibañez-Aguilar JE, González-Campos JB, Ponce-Ortega
JM, Serna-González M and El-Halwagi MM, Optimal planning
and site selection for distributed multiproduct biorefineries
involving economic, environmental and social objectives.
J Clean Prod 65:270–294 (2014).
49. Geraili A and Romagnoli JA, A multiobjective optimization
framewrok for design of integrated biorefineries under uncer-
tainty. AIChE J 61:3208–3222 (2015).
50. Rizwan M, Lee JH and Gani R, Optimal design of microalgae-
based biorefinery: Economics, opportunities and challenges.
Appl Energy 150:69–79 (2015).
51. Belletante S, Montastruc L, Negny S and Domenech S,
Optimal design of an efficient, profitable and sustainable
biorefinery producing acetone, butanol and ethanol: Influence
of the in-situ separation on the purification structure. Biochem
Eng J 116:195–209 (2016).
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
52. Hernández-Calderón OM, Ponce-Ortega JM, Ortiz-Del-
Castillo JR, Cervantes-Gaxiola ME, Milán-Carrillo J, Serna-
González M et al., Optimal design of distributed algae-based
biorefineries using CO2 emissions from multiple industrial
plants. Ind Eng Chem Res 55:2345–2358 (2016).
53. Sugiyama H, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K and Hirao M,
Decision framework for chemical process design including dif-
ferent stages of environmental, health and safety assessment.
AIChE J 54:1037–1053 (2008).
54. Patel AD, Meesters K, den Uil H, de Jong E, Blok K and Patel
MK, Sustainability assessment of novel chemical processes
at early stage: Application to biobased processes. Energy
Environ Sci 5:8430 (2012).
55. Posada JA, Patel AD, Roes A, Blok K, Faaij APC and Patel
MK, Potential of bioethanol as a chemical building block for
biorefineries: Preliminary sustainability assessment of 12
bioethanol-based products. Bioresour Technol 135:490–499
(2013).
56. Vlysidis A, Binns M, Webb C and Theodoropoulos C,
A techno-economic analysis of biodiesel biorefineries:
Assessment of integrated designs for the co-production of
fuels and chemicals. Energy 36:4671–4683 (2011).
57. Cavalett O, Junqueira TL, Dias MOS, Jesus CDF, Mantelatto
PE, Cunha MP et al., Environmental and economic assess-
ment of sugarcane first generation biorefineries in Brazil.
Clean Technol Environ Policy 14:399–410 (2012).
58. Gnansounou E, Vaskan P and Pachón ER, Comparative
techno-economic assessment and LCA of selected integrated
sugarcane-based biorefineries. Bioresour Technol 196:364–
375 (2015).
59. Aristizábal Marulanda V, Jet Biofuel Production from
Agroindustrial Wastes through Furfural Platform. (2015).
60. Londoño Carvajal A, Giraldo Gómez GI and Gutierrez Gallego
AA , Métodos Analíticos Para la Evaluación de la Calidad
Fisicoquímica del Agua (2010).
61. Wilkie AC, Riedesel KJ and Owens JM, Stillage charac-
terization and anaerobic treatment of ethanol stillage from
conventional and cellulosic feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy
19:63–102 (2000).
62. Fava F, Totaro G, Diels L, Reis M, Duarte J, Carioca OB et al.,
Biowaste biorefinery in Europe: Opportunities and research
and development needs. N Biotechnol 32:100–108 (2015).
63. Sanchez A, Magaña G, Partida MI and Sanchez S,
Bi-dimensional sustainability analysis of a multi-feed biore-
finery design for biofuels co-production from lignocellulosic
residues and agro-industrial wastes. Chem Eng Res Des
107:195–217 (2016).
64. Young DM and Cabezas H, Designing sustainable processes
with simulation: The waste reduction (WAR) algorithm. Comput
Chem Eng 23:1477–1491 (1999).
65. Luo L, van der Voet E and Huppes G, Biorefining of
lignocellulosic feedstock – Technical, economic and environ-
mental considerations. Bioresour Technol 101:5023–5032
(2010).
66. Moncada J, Tamayo JA and Cardona CA , Integrating first,
second, and third generation biorefineries: Incorporating
microalgae into the sugarcane biorefinery. Chem Eng Sci
118:126–140 (2014).
67. Aristizábal MV, Gómez PÁ, Carlos A and Cardona A,
Biorefineries based on coffee cut-stems and sugarcane
bagasse: Furan-based compounds and alkanes as interesting
products. Bioresour Technol 196:480–489 (2015).
19
V Aristizábal-Marulanda, CA Cardona Alzate Review: Methods for designing and assesing biorefineries
68. Moncada J, Cardona CA, Higuita JC, Vélez JJ and López-
Suarez FE, Wood residue (Pinus patula bark) as an alternative
feedstock for producing ethanol and furfural in Colombia:
experimental, techno-economic and environmental assess-
ments. Chem Eng Sci 140:309–318 (2016).
69. Valencia Botero M, Cardona Alzate CA and Younes Velosa
C, Cálculo de Gases de Efecto Invernadero en Procesos
Químicos y Biotecnológicos conénfasis en Cadenas de
Suministro (2013).
70. Uihlein A and Schebek L, Environmental impacts of a lignocel-
lulose feedstock biorefinery system: An assessment. Biomass
Bioenergy 33:793–802 (2009).
71. Cherubini F and Jungmeier G, LCA of a biorefinery concept
producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switch-
grass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:53–66 (2010).
72. De Meester S, Life Cycle Assessment in Biorefineries: Case
Studies and Methodological Development. (2013).
73. Karka P, Papadokonstantakis S, Hungerbühler K and Kokossis
A , Environmental impact assessment of biorefinery products
using life cycle analysis. Comput Aided Chem Eng 34:543–
548 (2014).
74. Ahlgren S, Bjöjklund A, Ekman A, Karlsson H, Berlin J,
Börjesson P et al., Review of methological choices in LCA
of biorefinery systems – key issues and recommendations.
Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 9:606–619 (2015).
75. Moncada J, Tamayo JA and Cardona CA , Integrating first,
second, and third generation biorefineries: Incorporating
microalgae into the sugarcane biorefinery. Chem Eng Sci
118:126–140 (2014).
76. Dávila JA, Rosenberg M and Cardona CA, A biorefinery for
efficient processing and utilization of spent pulp of Colombian
Andes Berry (Rubus glaucus Benth.): Experimental, techno-
economic and environmental assessment. Bioresour Technol
223:227–236 (2017).
77. Naranjo JM, Cardona CA and Higuita JC, Use of residual
banana for polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) production: Case of
study in an integrated biorefinery. Waste Manage 34:2634–
2640 (2014).
78. Dale BE and Ong RG, Design, implementation and evalua-
tion of sustainable bioenergy production systems. Biofuels,
Bioprod Biorefin 8:487–503 (2014).
79. Lau MW, Bals BD, Chundawat SPS, Jin M, Gunawan C, Balan
V et al., An integrated paradigm for cellulosic biorefineries:
Utilization of lignocellulosic biomass as self-sufficient feed-
stocks for fuel, food precursors and saccharolytic enzyme
production. Energy Environ Sci 5:7100 (2012).
80. United Nations Environment Programme, Guideline for Social
Life Cycle Assessment of Products. (2009).
81. Ramirez PKS and Petti L, Social life cycle assessment:
Methodological and implementation issues. Ann ‘Stefan cel
20 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Mare’ Univ Suceava Fascicle Fac Econ Public Adm 11:1–7
(2011).
82. van Haaster B, Ciroth A, Fontes J, Wood R and Ramirez
A , Development of a methodological framework for social
life-cycle assessment of novel technologies. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 22:1–18 (2016).
83. Ciroth A and Eisfeldt F, PSILCA – A Product Social Impact Life
Cycle Assessment Database Version 1.0. (2015).
84. Taylor G, Biofuels and the biorefinery concept. Energy Policy
36:4406–4409 (2008).
85. World Economic Forum, The Future of Industrial Biorefineries.
(2010). Available: www.weforum.org [April 2018].
86. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of
Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Newsroom. Announcements
(2017). Available: https//nifa.usda.gov [April 2018].
87. Biobased Industries Consortium (BIC), (2014). Available: http//
biconsortium.eu [April 2018].
Valentina Aristizábal-Marulanda
Valentina Aristizábal-Marulanda has an
MSc in chemical engineering and is a
PhD student in chemical engineering at
the Universidad Nacional de Colombia
at Manizales. She conducts research
on the formulation of a methodology
to design and analyze optimal biorefin-
ery configurations. The analysis focuses on sustainable
biorefineries, considering technical, economic, environ-
mental, and social aspects. She has worked on jet fuel
production and on the development of projects related to
the valorization of residues.
Carlos A. Cardona Alzate
Carlos A. Cardona Alzate Chem Eng,
MSc, PhD, is a full professor at the
Universidad Nacional de Colombia at
Manizales. He has carried out exten-
sive research focused on the develop-
ment of non-conventional separation
processes, integration processes,
process engineering, biorefineries, and climate change.
He has also conducted advanced research in the use of
Colombian agroindustrial wastes to obtain value-added
products by biotechnological methods.