Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: A comprehensive review T

a,b b a,c,d,e,⁎
Aristotle T. Ubando , Charles B. Felix , Wei-Hsin Chen
a
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, Philippines
c
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, College of Engineering, Tunghai University, Taichung 407, Taiwan
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taichung 411, Taiwan
e
Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biorefinery is a sustainable means of generating multiple bioenergy products from various biomass feedstocks
Circular economy through the incorporation of relevant conversion technologies. With the increased attention of circular economy
Bioeconomy in the past half-decade with the emphasis of holistically addressing economic, environmental, and social aspects
Biorefinery of the industrial-sector, biorefinery acts as a strategic mechanism for the realization of a circular bioeconomy.
Lignocellulosic and algal biomass
This study presents a comprehensive review of different biorefinery models used for various biomass feedstocks
Waste
such as lignocelluloses, algae, and numerous waste-types. The review focuses on how biorefinery is instrumental
Life-cycle assessment
Techno-economic analysis in the transition of various biomass-based industries in a circular bioeconomy. The results reveal that the social-
economic aspect of the industrial sector has a major influence on the full adoption of biorefineries in circular
bioeconomy. Biomass wastes have played a major role in the implementation of biorefinery in circular bioec-
onomy. The current challenges are also presented along with future perspectives.

1. Introduction virgin resource consumption by enhancing the resource, recovery, and

Driven by the sustained growth of resource consumption, the cir-
cular economy (CE) has received much attention in recent years as a
solution to surmount the present consumption and production de-
mands. CE is perceived as a concept of sustainability to limit or hinder
recycle (Ghisellini et al., 2016). It is aimed to provide a sustainable
alternative to the known “take, make, and dispose” framework of the
current economic development model (Ness, 2008). The impeccable
success of the term circular economy possibly lies with the encouraging
perspective of simultaneously addressing the social, economic, and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan.
E-mail addresses: weihsinchen@gmail.com, chenwh@mail.ncku.edu.tw (W.-H. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122585
Received 1 November 2019; Received in revised form 5 December 2019; Accepted 6 December 2019
Available online 10 December 2019
0960-8524/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.T. Ubando, et al.
environmental concerns brought by the latter model. CE serves as a
panacea capable of improving the current economic condition while
jumpstarting a customary way of everlasting economic development by
surpassing both biotic and abiotic limits on input (non-renewable
sources) and output (GHG emissions) (Giampietro, 2019). The panacea
was defined recently by D'Amato et al. (2017) as the circular bioec-
onomy (CBE) involving a multitude of biomass sources.
With the increasing demand for energy, the growing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and the depleting fossil fuels, biomass emerges as a
pivotal renewable energy source to overcome the current and future
needs of humankind. To maximize the utilization of biomass and to
minimize the waste and emissions associated with the conversion of
bioenergy products, the biorefinery concept was proposed by Cherubini
(2010). The biorefinery concept was employed to efficiently produce
high-value products from different feedstocks such as lignocellulosic
biomass (Özdenkçi et al., 2017; Sawatdeenarunat et al., 2018), algal
biomass (Bastiaens et al., 2017; De Bhowmick et al., 2019), food wastes
(Bastidas-Oyanedel and Schmidt, 2018; Dahiya et al., 2018; Esteban
and Ladero, 2018), microbial-treated wastes (Mohan et al., 2016), and
manures (Chen et al., 2005). Recently, enzymatic technologies have
also been developed and integrated with biorefineries to generate ad-
vanced biofuels (Singh et al., 2019). The notion of utilizing biomaterials
in technical and production cycles aside from the biological cycle opens
the opportunities for reuse, recycle, and remanufacture which is known
as the circular bioeconomy (Corrado and Sala, 2018).
Review studies were conducted previously covering the following
topics on circular economy and biorefinery. Ferreira et al. (2018) per-
formed a review of various integration strategies of different lig-
nocellulosic by-products and wastes from first-generation bioethanol
wastes via co-generation systems and microbial conversion approach.
Barampouti et al. (2019) presented the numerous state-of-the-art va-
lorization technologies of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
to generate biofuels. Awasthi et al. (2019) conducted a critical review
of organic manure biorefinery models to generate sustainable manure
bio-products such as methane, fertilizers, and various bio-gases.
Delbecq et al. (2018) outlined recent breakthroughs and advances in
conversion pathways to sustainably produce furfural from poly-
saccharides and sugar feedstocks. Zabaniotou and Kamaterou (2019)
reviewed the prospects, potentials, and challenges of transitioning from
a single-process to an integrated spent coffee grounds biorefinery.
Mohan et al. (2016) evaluated various biorefinery models that treated
waste as a renewable feedstock for various bioenergy streams such as
power, heat, biochemical, feed, and fertilizer. Nizami et al. (2017)
performed a review study of various waste biorefineries enabling cir-
cular economies in developing countries. Lastly, Pant et al. (2019)
completed a comparative study of the current developments of the bio-
based economy between countries in Europe (EU-27) and India, and
found out that multidisciplinary research and development would be
necessary in order to lessen the overall process costs and environmental
impacts of developed and developing bio-based technologies.
However, the preceding literature review suggests that no review
studies have been performed in analyzing the biorefinery models in the
circular bioeconomy of various feedstocks such as lignocellulosic bio-
mass, algal biomass (macroalgae and macroalgae), waste (food, bio-
mass, paper, solid-waste, manure), and biofuel production. To this
writing, the resulting bibliometric analysis in the Web of Science on the
topics of “Circular Economy”, “Biorefinery”, and “Circular Economy
Biorefinery” revealed the total numbers of scientific journal publication
of 3171, 6152, and 91, respectively (November 1, 2019). In 2018, the
numbers of scientific journal publications on these topics are 920 for
“Circular Economy”, 1026 for “Biorefinery”, and 36 for “Circular
Economy Biorefinery”. The publications are projected to increase in the
coming years as the awareness for a circular production framework
spreads. The network map of keywords in the 74 scientific publications
on “Circular Economy Biorefinery” was generated using the full
counting method of VOSViewer (Perianes-Rodriguez et al., 2016). The
2
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
Fig. 1. The keyword network of circular bioeconomy and biorefinery.
resulting network map of keywords is shown in Fig. 1 where the major
keywords as depicted by the size of the font and sphere icon shown in
the figure were “circular economy”, “biorefinery”, “biomass”, and “food
waste”. It was found that most of these publications were very recent.
Nevertheless, it should be underlined that a comprehensive review of
these topics is still absent. Therefore, the aim of this work is to review
the relevant studies within the 74 scientific publications on case studies
of biorefinery in circular bioeconomy utilized in three feedstocks such
as lignocellulosic biomass, algal biomass, and wastes. In addition, the
review covers circular biofuel production from biorefinery. The novelty
of the study focuses on the critical analysis of biorefinery models and
pathways for different feedstocks and biofuel production from the
perspective of circular bioeconomy.
2. Circular bioeconomy
2.1. Circular economy
The idea of CE was inspired by the re-evaluation of production
processes in the 1970s to the 1980s drawn from the concept of in-
dustrial metabolism and industrial ecology (Frosch and Gallopoulos,
2010). In the 1990s, the notion of CE was popularized and was framed
as an antagonistic approach to a linear economy wherein the accumu-
lated environmental impact of industrial processes diminish (Pearce
and Ker, 1991). The goal of CE is to remodel the life-cycle of a product
wherein the net reduction of environmental impacts is achieved at an
organizational level while minimizing resource consumption and waste
generation (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012). CE supports the
concept of industrial symbiosis where industrial synergy is encouraged
through the reuse of by-products within the industrial network, thus,
reducing the waste and raw material input of the system (Chertow,
2007). However, a myriad of definition for CE was found in the lit-
erature which signified the different interpretations of the concept
among practitioners and scholars. Kirchherr et al. (2017) analyzed 114
definitions of CE and found that CE was frequently associated with
reducing, reusing, and recycling activities. Only a few studies have
claimed that recovering activities were a vital component of CE. In
addition, a strong correlation was linked between CE and sustainable
development whereas the prior was not regarded as a requirement for
system change.
Amidst the recent popularity, CE faces cultural barriers induced by
insufficient governmental support to initiate and sustain massive
A.T. Ubando, et al.
consumer traction (Kirchherr et al., 2018). Synergistic policy-based
interventions are required to engage the market and the industry to-
wards the progressive transition to CE. The premise to reconcile the
economic, social, and environmental goals have eluded the notion of
sustainability wherein both the CE and bioeconomy (BE) act as me-
chanisms for a sustainable future.
2.2. Bioeconomy concept and circular bioeconomy
The BE concept was initially outlined in the 1990s by Enriquez
(1998) highlighting the significance of genomics and its potential ap-
plications. In the early 2000s, BE gained compelling motion as a policy
concept in Europe wherein sustainability awareness had grown (Birner,
2018). BE has captured the attention of scholars and industry practi-
tioners in the latter portions of the 2000s (Fund et al., 2015) and has
been popularized until the present. BE has been defined by the
European Commission (2018) to cover the creation of different re-
newable biological resources and its conversion to various high-value
bio-based products such as food, feed, biochemical, and bioenergy. It
promises to mitigate the effects of climate change while providing a
renewable carbon source (biomass) as well as creating business and
employment opportunities, especially in the rural areas. In order to
fulfill these expectations, the biorefinery concept plays a key role to
optimize the conversion of biomass and to achieve the goals set for the
BE concept.
The CBE adopts the CE framework, utilizing biomass as an integral
component to generate various bio-products, biochemicals, and bioe-
nergy in a biorefinery (European Commission, 2017). By closing the
loop in the CBE framework, sustainability and economic viability for
bio-stream production are achieved (Carus and Dammer, 2018).
2.3. Biorefinery
Biomass is regarded as a renewable carbon source, offering multi-
faceted benefits from carbon sequestration to the production of bioe-
nergy and bio-products. The utilization of biomass as a source of energy
streams (fuel and energy) is limited by its supply and the maximum
conversion yields. Barriers to the efficient use of biomass as a renewable
carbon source are seasonality, geographic availability, and relatively
low calorific value (Basu, 2018). The sustainable production of biomass
deals with sensitive concern on the cultivation of arable land for food
(Gavrilescu, 2014). In order to maximize the use of biomass, including
the wastes generated from the various conversion pathways, and con-
vert it to valuable bio-based product streams, the integrated biorefinery
is considered. A biorefinery is an infrastructure facility wherein various
conversion technologies such as thermochemical, biochemical, com-
bustion, and microorganism growth platform are integrated to effi-
ciently produce sustainable bio-based product streams such as biofuels,
biochemicals, bioenergy, and other high-valued bio-products
(Cherubini, 2010; Ferreira, 2017). The biorefinery concept has been
recently designed and utilized to process various biomass feedstocks
such as lignocelluloses, algae, and various types of wastes. Some ex-
amples of biomass materials used in biorefineries with their major
characteristics are enumerated in Table 1.
2.3.1. Lignocellulosic biorefinery
Lignocellulosic biomass pertains to second-generation biomass
feedstocks and presents an alternative to first-generation biomass
feedstocks which competes with the land requirement of food crops.
They are a practical source of biomass feedstock, considering the broad
spectrum of plant options and high availability in tropical climates.
About 1.3 billion tons per year of lignocellulosic biomass are generated
globally wherein only 3% are consumed for biochemicals, bioenergy,
and non-food related bio-products (Baruah et al., 2018). Pre-
dominantly, lignocellulosic biomass is sourced from barley straw, co-
conut husk, corn stover, empty fruit bunch, rice, sugarcane bagasse,
3
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
straw, sorghum stalks, wheat, and wood. It consists of lignin, hemi-
celluloses, and cellulose which can be converted to various products
through lignocellulosic fractionation in a biorefinery (Zhang, 2008). De
Bhowmick et al. (2018) proposed the use of lignocellulosic biorefinery
as a platform to address the sustainable development of high-valued
bio-products together with the production of biofuels. They highlighted
that recycling biomass and its wastes as well as the integration of dif-
ferent conversion technologies through process integration are feasible
routes for sustainable production of bio-products.
2.3.2. Algal biorefinery
Algal biomass is considered as advanced (third-generation) biomass
feedstocks which provide benefits such as lower land requirement as
well as higher biomass productivity and yield when compared with
lignocellulosic biomass. Algal biomass can be categorized into two main
categories such as macroalgae (Torres et al., 2019) and microalgae
(Chew et al., 2017) biomass.
Microalgae are photosynthetic microorganisms that efficiently uti-
lize solar energy to amass biomass which consists of essential biological
compounds (Leu and Boussiba, 2014). Microalgae can be grown in
various reactor systems including photobioreactors which can be ver-
tically designed and fabricated offering lesser land requirements
(Ubando et al., 2016) than conventional means of cultivation. Various
biorefinery pathways, especially for microalgae biomass, have been
proposed to sustainably produce numerous microalgal-based products
(Chew et al., 2017; López Barreiro et al., 2014).
Macroalgae are marine microorganisms known as seaweeds which
are primarily grown offshore and are abundant on coastal shorelines
(Lehahn et al., 2016). They offer a sustainable source of bio-compounds
that can be converted to food and high-value products such as biofuels
and biochemicals (Jiang et al., 2016). The development of macroalgae-
based biorefinery was introduced for the production of high-valued bio-
products from seaweeds (Ingle et al., 2018; Sadhukhan et al., 2016).
Microbes are microorganisms that live as a single-cell or thrive in a
multi-celled environment wherein it facilitates the breakdown of
hemicelluloses and cellulose from lignocellulosic biomass into bio-
compounds essential for fermentation (Jin et al., 2015). Through fer-
mentation, biofuels can be generated using the microbial biorefinery
systems (Almeida et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2017). Hasunuma et al.
(2013) performed a critical review of various microbes used for biofuel
production from lignocellulosic biomass in a biorefinery perspective.
2.3.3. Waste biorefinery
The biorefinery using wastes (non-edible feedstocks and biogenic
wastes) has emerged as a sensible alternative for the production of bio-
based products such as biopolymers, biofuels, and biochemicals
(Venkata Mohan, 2014). Wastes are a key component of CBE where
opportunities for reuse, recycle, and remanufacture are practically at-
tainable as most of the conversion technologies and pathways are ma-
ture and readily available. To further enable an efficient and successful
conversion from waste-to-bioenergy, waste characterization (Skaggs
et al., 2018) has been conducted together with the development of
waste-to-energy plants (Chandak et al., 2015). The sustainable pro-
duction of bioenergy from wastes can be achieved through the em-
ployment of the biorefinery concept. Biorefinery studies on various
types of wastes such as food waste (Bastidas-Oyanedel and Schmidt,
2018), lignocellulosic waste (Serrano et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2019),
paper waste (Adu et al., 2018), municipal solid waste (Barampouti
et al., 2019), and manure (Chen et al., 2005) have been performed in
the past. A review of different waste biorefinery routes in developing
countries was conducted by Nizami et al. (2017) in the prospect of a
circular economy. As the waste problem escalates (Minelgaitė and
Liobikienė, 2019), the waste biorefinery using the CBE framework fa-
cilitates a holistic approach in addressing multiple faceted concerns on
environmental, social, and economic aspects.
A.T. Ubando, et al. Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585

Table 1
The different biomass feedstock used in biorefineries with compositional and material properties.
Classification Feedstock Compositional Analysis Elemental Analysis Calorific Value References

Algal Chlorella vulgaris Crude Ash (31–45 g/kg DM ) 1

− − Wild et al. (2019)
Crude Protein (328–579 g/kg DM1)
Ether Extract (157–341 g/kg DM1)
Scenedesmus obliquus Lipids (30.85%) − − Ansari et al. (2017)
Carbohydrates (35.05%)
Proteins (19.52%)
Chlorella sorokiniana Lipids (31.85%) − − Ansari et al. (2017)
Carbohydrates (35.43%)
Proteins (28.81%)
Ankistrodesmus falcatus Lipids (35.9%) − − Ansari et al. (2017)
Carbohydrates (33.88%)
Proteins (30.59%)
Fucus spp. Total Solids (27.7–34.1%) Carbon (41.4–45.1%) − Tedesco and Stokes (2017)
Total Volatile Solids (77.7–81%) Hydrogen (4.9–5.1%)
Nitrogen (1.5%)
Oxygen (35.1–36.5%)
Laminaria Total Solids (22.3–26.6%) Carbon (38.9–42%) − Tedesco and Stokes (2017)
Total Volatile Solids (75–84%) Hydrogen (4.7–5.1%)
Nitrogen (0.9–1.3%)
Oxygen (37.2–39%)
Ascophyllum nodosum Total Solids (32.6%) Carbon (46.4%) − Tedesco and Stokes (2017)
Total Volatile Solids (78.8%) Hydrogen (5.2%)
Nitrogen (1.5%)
Sulfur (0.7%)
Oxygen (34.8%)
Ulva rigida Total Solids (20.5%) Carbon (40.6%) − Tedesco and Stokes (2017)
Total Volatile Solids (73.3%) Hydrogen (5.0%)
Nitrogen (3.6%)
Sulfur (1.1%)
Oxygen (35.3%)
Lignocellulosic Pine woodchips (Pinus Moisture (6.3%) Carbon (49.7%) 19.2 MJ/kg (HHV) Navarro et al. (2018)
halepensis) Ash (0.6%) Hydrogen (6.6%)
Volatiles (77.6%) Nitrogen (0.1%)
Fixed Carbon (15.5%) Oxygen (44.4%)
Sugar beet pulps Cellulose (23%) − − Alexandri et al. (2019)
Hemicellulose (19.5%)
Pectin (30.3%)
Protein (9.6%)
Lignin (2.6%)
Sugarcane bagasse Sugarcane − − Mandegari et al. (2017)
Sugar (15 wt%)
Bagasse (30 wt%)
Residues (15 wt%)
Bagasse
Cellulose (39–43%)
Lignin (21–43%)
Hemicellulose (25–32%)
Waste Crude glycerol Moisture (1.5–6.5%) Carbon (52.7 wt%) − Manara and Zabaniotou
Ash (1.5–2.5%) Hydrogen (11.08 wt%) (2016)
Soap (3–5%) Nitrogen (< 0.0001 wt%)
Oxygen (36.15 wt%)
Food Lipids (26.13–33.24 %wt) − 39.5 MJ/kg Carmona-Cabello et al.
Oleic Acid, C18:1 (36.4 – 41.6% wt) (2018)
Linolenic Acid, C18:2 (21.4 – 38.6 %wt)
Food Total Solids (~20%) − − Capson-Tojo et al. (2016)
Proteins (15–25%)
Lipids (13–30%)
Mixed vegetables, Spent Nucleic Acid (0.07 to 13.5 wt%; 1.12–1.95 − − Bosco et al. (2017)
brewer’s yeast OD260/280 purity)
Municipal solid waste Water (19–22 %wt) Carbon (29–38 wt%) 14–20 MJ/kg Iaquaniello et al. (2018)
Ash (17–30 %wt) Hydrogen (4–5 wt%) (LHV)
Oxygen (14–18 wt%)
Pineapple Peels − − Banerjee et al. (2018)
5.1 wt% Protein
5.3 wt% Lipid
4.3 wt% Ash
55.5 wt% Carbohydrates
Leaves
Cellulose (75–85%)
Pomace
Moisture 3.7%
Protein 4.7%
Fat 0.6%
(continued on next page)

4
A.T. Ubando, et al. Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585

Table 1 (continued)

Classification Feedstock Compositional Analysis Elemental Analysis Calorific Value References

Ash 2.2%
Fiber 45.2%
Spent coffee grounds Cellulose (13 wt% dry) − 24.9 MJ/kg Karmee (2018)
Hemicellulose (42 wt% dry)
Lignin (25 wt% dry)
Protein (18 wt% dry)
Fat (2 wt% dry)
Spent coffee grounds Lipids (9–16 wt% dry) Carbon (45–53 wt% dry) − Zabaniotou and Kamaterou
Carbohydrates (14.1–65.9 wt% dry) Hydrogen (6–7 wt% dry) (2019)
Protein (5–15 wt% dry) Nitrogen (2–4 wt% dry)
Moisture (79.5 wt%) Sulfur (0.1 wt% dry)
Volatile (79.5 wt% dry) Oxygen (34.8–38.1 wt%
Ash (1–2 wt% dry) dry)
Fixed Carbon (8.2 wt% dry)

Fig. 2. The role of biorefinery in circular bioeconomy.

2.4. Biorefinery models
The role of the biorefinery concept in the circular bioeconomy is
depicted in Fig. 2. The biorefinery is composed of 4 main conversion
platforms such as the thermochemical, biological, chemical, and me-
chanical conversions. These enable the appropriate conversion of var-
ious biomass feedstocks to different bioproducts identified as either
primary or secondary. The prior refers to as the raw bioproducts while
the latter represents the refined bioproducts. In most cases, the latter is
higher valued compared with the prior through further process re-
finement. The circular bioeconomy framework with the biorefinery
concept is shown in Fig. 3. Meanwhile, different bioenergy conversion
processes under the context of biorefineries utilizing some biomass
materials described are listed in Table 2.
2.5. Valorization
Biomass valorization involves the enhancement in the value of
biomass wherein the biorefinery acts as a platform for valorization
through the inclusion of various conversion technologies. Prospects of
particular biomass to be utilized in a biorefinery will be limited by the
quantity and quality of the available supply. As such, before proceeding
with valorization strategies, it is important to acquire an estimate re-
garding the amount of biomass that can be utilized in a particular re-
gion, and characterize it based on whatever purpose it may potentially
serve (Cardoen et al., 2015). In addition, from a techno-economic
analysis conducted by Liu et al. (2019), results revealed that a high
conversion yield and a minimum cost of co-product separation were the
basic requirements for the success of biomass valorization in bior-
efineries. Recently, Shin et al. (2019) reviewed various types of mi-
crobes for lignin valorization which could improve the performance of a
biorefinery. Hemalatha et al. (2019) proposed a self-sustainable bior-
efinery platform which employed a circular cascading approach for the
valorization of bio-products. Biorefinery processes were introduced by
Rivas et al. (2019) for the valorization of Miscanthus polysaccharides for
the production of biochemicals. The benefits of biomass valorization
are important and vital for the success of CBE. However, the optimal
design and comprehensive techno-economic analysis are required for
the scale-up of the valorization process and the inclusion into the
biorefinery.

5
A.T. Ubando, et al.
Fig. 3. The biorefinery framework on circular bioeconomy.
2.6. Sustainability assessment of biorefineries
The performance of biorefinery has been previously measured in
terms of its economic valuation through the net present value and other
temporal adjusted methods, and in terms of environmental evaluation
through life cycle assessment (LCA). Most of the studies were ex-
clusively analyzed with a single-criterion in mind as either economic or
environmental, while the possible combinatorial effects of multiple
criteria were most often neglected (Tuazon and Gnansounou, 2017).
The sustainability assessment of biorefineries can be analyzed based on
the triple bottom line framework proposed by Tuazon et al. (2013)
which consists of the environmental, economic, and social aspects. The
framework of the triple bottom line applied to circular bioeconomy is
shown in Fig. 4. The sustainable production of biofuel production was
previously assessed by Liew et al. (2014) using the triple bottom line
framework. Their results revealed that biofuel production pre-
dominantly is preferred in terms of GHG emissions and its beneficial
impact on the rural community. However, barriers such as operational
and investment costs along with the feedstock availability hinder the
commercialization of biofuel production. Azapagic (2014) critically
reviewed and presented the sustainability concerns of integrated bior-
efineries which resulted in a detailed discussion of its strengths and
weaknesses that followed the triple bottom line. Table 3 summarizes
various methods performed to assess the sustainability of different
biorefineries, with corresponding remarks on circular bioeconomy. The
succeeding subsections review the methodologies used for the sustain-
able assessment of biorefineries.
6
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
2.6.1. Life cycle assessment
LCA is a sound method of accounting and evaluating the environ-
mental impact of delivering a service or producing a product based on
the ISO 14040 series. It consists of 4 major procedures: (1) the goal and
scope; (2) the life cycle inventory; (3) the life-cycle impact assessment;
and (4) the interpretation of the results. Previous LCA studies have been
performed to account for the environmental impacts of various bior-
efinery configurations. Gnansounou and Pandey (2017) reported the
LCA of biorefineries which extensively tackled the evaluation of various
types of biorefineries such as lignocelluloses and algae as case studies.
The biorefinery case studies involved the LCA analysis of agricultural
feedstocks (Dufossé et al., 2017), sugar-crops (Vaskan et al., 2017),
vetiver (Raman and Gnansounou, 2017), empty fruit bunch (Montafia
and Gnansounou, 2017), and microalgae (Gnansounou and Raman,
2017). From a circular bioeconomy perspective, the use of the LCA
method employing a cradle-to-grave system boundary is essential in the
detailed design of a biorefinery, aiming at identifying opportunities for
improvement. LCA enables the determination of the environmental
burdens in a product life-cycle including waste quantification which
may pose challenges in the analysis due to data availability (Nizami
et al., 2017).
2.6.2. Techno-economic analysis (TEA)
TEA aims to evaluate the technical and economic aspects of man-
ufacturing a product (Lauer, 2008). It includes the quantification of the
capital and operational costs considering the various technologies in-
volved in the biorefinery. TEA was employed previously to examine
A.T. Ubando, et al. Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585

various types of biorefineries such as corn-stover (Luo et al., 2010),

Tedesco and Stokes

Solarte-Toro et al.
sugarcane (Junqueira et al., 2017; Mandegari et al., 2017), glycerol

Carmona-Cabello

Karmee (2018)
(D’Angelo et al., 2018; Vlysidis et al., 2011), lignin-based feedstocks

et al. (2018)
References

(2017) (Shen et al., 2019), rice-straw (Isoni et al., 2018), food residues

(2018)
(Bastidas-Oyanedel and Schmidt, 2019), and an assortment of lig-
nocellulosic feedstocks (Alves et al., 2017; Klein-Marcuschamer et al.,
2011). Hytönen and Stuart (2011) employed TEA to examine the pro-
Residues (24.9 MJ/kg), cess uncertainties in a biorefinery using Monte Carlo analysis. They
Biochar (31.9 MJ/kg) proposed to perform TEA with risk analysis in the process design phase
39.5 MJ/kg (LCV)

of the biorefinery.
Calorific Value

2.6.3. Social-economic analysis (SEA)

Few studies have been found in the literature on the SEA of bior-
−

efineries. Hasenheit et al. (2016) highlighted that the socio-economic

impact not only is limited to the production of bioenergy products in
Inorganic compounds, Solid

the biorefinery but also extends to the farms where the biomass is
Defatted coffee grounds,
Natural Antioxidants,

grown and cultivated. Their socio-economic results on the production

of various bioenergy products were categorized based on positive-,
and saturated fat
Gypsum, Lignin

neutral-, or negative-impacts. Rakotovao et al. (2018) evaluated a rural

By-products

biorefinery by developing a socio-economic framework-based terri-

glycerol

torial embeddedness of economic activities within the region. In addi-

tion, they have incorporated social life cycle assessment (SLCA) as one
−

of the criteria to examine the social dimension of the rural biorefinery.

Very few studies have focused on the SEA of biorefineries. No studies
Lipids (26.13–33.24 wt%), FAME
Laminaria 87–195 ml CH4/g VS,

have been found to evaluate the social aspect of biorefineries in the

Fucus spp. 100 ml CH4/g VS

FAME (72–100%), Biochar

circular bioeconomy framework.

Bioethanol (11.08 wt%)

2.6.4. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

Production Yield

Oil (8.6–21.5%),

Sustainability assessment of biorefineries has been performed by

(84–88 wt%)

(25–40 wt%)

various stakeholders in decision-making where their interest in en-

vironmental, economic, and social criteria was accounted mostly in-
dividually (Schebek and Mrani, 2014). MCDA is a decision-making tool
enabling the conglomeration of numerous criteria that aim to develop a
comprehensive and integrated assessment tool (Cinelli et al., 2014).
MCDA is capable of adopting the life-cycle thinking methodology which
fermentation, pyrolysis, hydrothermal liquefaction, and
Anerobic digestion of biocompounds-extracted residues

Catalyzed transesterification, in-situ transesterification,

includes LCA, life cycle costing (LCC), and SLCA covering the triple
bottom line framework (Halog and Manik, 2011). Balanay and Halog
(2018) employed the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) which
is the aggregated results of LCA, LCC, and SLCA to assess the adoption
of the circular economy on the textile industry in the Philippines.
Esterification, and transesterification
Acid pretreatment and Fermentation

A minority of studies utilizing MCDA for the sustainability assess-

ment of biorefineries have been found and are discussed as follows.
Tuazon and Gnansounou (2017) proposed a structured methodology
Conversion Technologies

covering local conditions that accounted for underlying assumptions,

The bioenergy products with the corresponding conversion technologies.

biases, and intangible factors that could be integrated with the sus-
anaerobic digestion

tainability assessment of biorefineries. Lemire et al. (2019) used a

geographic information system (GIS) coupled with MCDA to design and
evaluate the decentralized biorefinery supply chain in Canada which
resulted in the average travel time of materials and products. Lastly,
Chong (2011) proposed an MCDA methodology in assessing the most
promising biorefinery supply chains in Europe which resulted in the
Bioenergy Product

production of ethanol from the straw feedstock.

Biodiesel, bio-oil,
and bioethanol
Bioethanol

2.6.5. Process integration and optimization

Biodiesel

In adopting cleaner production principles and aiming for sustain-

Biogas

ability, the key areas of biorefinery design are process integration (PI)
(Walmsley et al., 2018). PI is defined as a holistic framework in ap-
plying the technique of integrating various conversion processes. PI
Waste (Spent coffee grounds)
Algal (Macroalgae Laminaria

Lignocellulosic (Olive tree

desires the reduction of material and energy consumption while deli-

vering the production requirements and minimizing wastes and emis-
sions (El-Halwagi, 2013; Klemeš, 2013). Özdenkçi et al. (2017) em-
and Fucus)

ployed process integration and introduced the hierarchy of a supply

Waste (Food)
Classification

biomass)

chain network which comprised strategy, tactics, and operation of a

lignocellulosic biorefinery. Their results showed a sectoral integration
Table 2

network of the lignocellulosic biorefinery which was validated by the

LCA method.

7
A.T. Ubando, et al.
Fig. 4. The triple bottom line as an assessment tool for circular bioeconomy.
2.6.6. Summary of sustainability assessment tools
The intersection of the five sustainability tools with the word
“biorefinery” was analyzed in the Web of Science (November 1, 2019).
Out of the five sustainability assessment tools, the most to least studied
approach on biorefineries are PI (400 documents), LCA (406 docu-
ments), TEA (287 documents), SEA (16 documents), and MCDA (16
documents). The keyword network visualization of the top three sus-
tainability assessment tools, namely, PI, LCA, and TEA are shown in
Fig. 5. The PI studies shown in Fig. 5a were clustered into four cate-
gories with the main keywords of ethanol, microalgae, biodiesel, and
model (the PI model) were recognized. Five main clusters identified for
the LCA studies were microalgae, emissions, ethanol, supply chain, and
concept (the application of the LCA concept on biorefineries), as shown
in Fig. 5b. Meanwhile, the TEA studies were categorized into five
clusters with the main keywords of industry, system, yield, pathway,
and internal rate of return (IRR), as shown in Fig. 5c. These analyses
reflect that future studies may focus on the development of SEA and
MCDA of biorefineries because they have the least conducted studies
when compared with PI, LCA, and TEA.
3. Biorefinery case studies
The three biorefinery case studies discussed in this work are iden-
tified as lignocelluloses, algae, and wastes. Table 4 provides detailed
information on different biorefinery case studies in the literature with
different perspectives regarding valorization and circular economy.
8
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
3.1. Lignocelluloses
Lignocellulosic biomass is recognized as plant-based biomass that
avoids the potential conflict with the land utilization with food crops
(Ma et al., 2019). Lignocellulosic biomass consists of three major
polymers such as cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin with fractions of
35–50 wt%, 20–35 wt%, and 10–25 wt%, respectively (Ma et al., 2019).
Cellulose, an organic polymer, is composed of D-glucose units which
are attached to 1,4-glycosidic bond (Ma et al., 2019). Consisting of
glucose and pentose, hemicelluloses are polysaccharides with an
abundant monomer known as xylose (Ma et al., 2019). Lignin is re-
cognized as a shapeless aromatic polymer which is composed of various
types of alcohols such as coniferyl, p-coumaryl, and sinapyl (Ma et al.,
2019). To capitalize on lignocellulose material, biorefineries should be
designed based on its fundamental composition to effectively generate
numerous bioenergy product streams.
According to the report of the European Union (2007), the utiliza-
tion of lignocellulosic biomass through enzymatic hydrolysis for the
production of biofuels is projected to be a standard technology by 2020
as part of the development of bioeconomy.
3.2. Algae
Very few studies have been found to utilize algal biomass as the
main material for biorefinery. Both micro- and macroalgae are known
to have a multitude of species. However, only a relatively small number
was used extensively for the production of food or feed. Various che-
mical, nutritional components, and elements are also highly abundant
in algal biomass which can be extracted and processed as additives,
 A.T. Ubando, et al.

Table 3
The various methodologies to assess the sustainability of a biorefinery.
Type of Biorefinery Sustainability Performance Index/Factor Methodology Remarks on Circular Bioeconomy References

Algal (Seaweed) Climate change, cumulative energy demand, marine Life cycle assessment Environmental restoration and climate change mitigation contribute Seghetta et al. (2016)
eutrophication, and human toxicity to a regenerative circular economy.
Lignocellulosic (Dry wood) Eco-efficiency indicator Life cycle assessment Circular economy and environmental sustainability are positively Bello et al. (2018)
affected by the use of alternative resources.
Lignocellulosic (Sugar beet Abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, global warming Life cycle assessment Development of new valorization strategies for secondary streams of Gonzalez-Garcia et al.
pulp) potential, ozone layer depletion, human toxicity, freshwater biorefinery processes should aim to close the loop of product life (2018)
aquatic eco-toxicity, marine aquatic eco-toxicity, terrestrial eco- cycles in industrial production systems and consider its corresponding
toxicity, and photochemical oxidation environmental impacts.
Sugar Fossil fuel consumption, carbon footprint, water use, agro- Analytic hierarchy process Circular economy reflects a paradigm shift that motivates García-Bustamante et al.
industrial yield, human development, production cost, and product restructuring of biorefineries to develop and diversify green-based (2018)
diversification value-added products.
Waste (Food) Capital and operational cost, market values of products, net present Techno-economic analysis Process integration in biorefineries promotes better use of resources Demichelis et al. (2018)
value, return on investment, payback time, income per ton, and than linear processes.
energy requirement and recovery
Waste (Food) Energy consumption, nutrients release (eutropication and Life cycle assessment and life cycle Economic viability of the processes heavily relies on the product price. Capson-Tojo et al. (2016)
acidification), and payback period cost

9
Waste (Food) Total capital investment, manufacturing cost, revenues and Techno-economic and profitability Food wastes under a biorefinery platform have potential to realize the Cristóbal et al. (2018)
profitability ratios, return on investment, and payback period analysis goals of circularity by reducing fossil- and bio-based virgin materials
usage.
Waste (Glycerol) Capital cost, annualized net profit, payout time, total investment Techno-economic analysis Costs and environmental impacts heavily affect the process integration D’Angelo et al. (2018)
cost, cumulative energy demand, global warming potential, and and outputs of biorefineries.
eco-indicator 99
Waste (Municipal solid waste) Value on processing, cost of production, capital cost, Process integration, economic Transformation of waste feedstocks into new products by deliberately Sadhukhan and
photochemical ozone creation, human toxicity, global warming, value analysis, and life cycle putting them back into supply value chains or by replacing other raw Martinez-Hernandez
freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, eutrophication, acidification, and assessment materials (2017)
fossil energy saving
Waste (Olive mill solid waste) Net present value, internal rate of return, and payback period Economic assessment Product valuation and pollution reduction of wastes are essential Serrano et al. (2017)
aspects of circular economy.
Waste (Slag) GHG emissions, water emissions, solid residues, process and Environmental and social Circular economy should be approached with interdisciplinarity, Husgafvel et al. (2017)
production efficiency, transport, management and reporting, sustainability assessment engaging all stakeholders to address issues on resource use,
environmental innovations, leadership and strategy, legal aspects, evironmental impacts, and social acceptance.
location, supply chain, social innovations, labor practices, training,
skills, health, and safety
Waste (Wastewater) Cost of production, climate change, resources, ecosystem quality, Dynamic simulation, life cycle Utilization of wastes to produce fuels and chemicals directly Shemfe et al. (2018)
and human health assessment, techno-economic contributes towards the attainment of a circular economy.
assessment
Waste / Lignocellulosic Payback period, net present value, fixed capital and manufacturing Techno-economic assessment Scientific breakthroughs and infrastructure changes in current Mandegari et al. (2017)
(Sugarcane) cost, after-tax rate of return, and break-even price industries will drive the shift to sustainable bio-based economies.
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
A.T. Ubando, et al.
Fig. 5. The keyword network visualization of (a) process integration, (b) life
cycle assessment, and (c) techno-economic analysis.
fertilizers, cosmetics, medicines, and biofuels (Sosa-Hernández et al.,
2019; Torres et al., 2019). However, current extraction and purification
technologies are often limited to produce primary bioproducts alone,
and oftentimes make the biomass underutilized for other higher valued
applications (Torres et al., 2019). Nevertheless, research findings sug-
gest that better and more suitable technologies would emerge together
with the discovery of more appropriate algal species that would drive
industry investment for upcoming biorefineries (Sosa-Hernández et al.,
2019; Torres et al., 2019).
Process integration such as combining microalgae cultivation and
wastewater treatment is another promising aspect that has attracted
widespread attention due to its potential economic and environmental
benefits (Walmsley et al., 2018). The work of Uggetti et al. (2018)
documented an experimental facility that integrated microalgal
10
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
cultivation along with wastewater treatment to generate water for ir-
rigation and value-added products. It showed very promising results in
terms of observed biomass growth, nutrients removal from wastewater,
and synthesized bioproducts.
3.3. Wastes
Various biorefinery technologies are brought about by voluminous
waste generation by the current economic activities and the rapid ur-
banization of developed and developing countries, respectively. Recent
researches in the field have investigated different valorization tech-
nologies in addition to improving the current and mature waste hand-
ling processes in an effort to provide promising solutions in converting
wastes into an abundant source of renewable feedstock, generating
value-added products and energy. The composition of wastes is very
sensitive to the location or source, but can be broadly classified as ei-
ther food, biomass, agricultural, municipal, and industrial wastes.
3.3.1. Food waste (FW)
FW is predominant in the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(Barampouti et al., 2019). They are produced primarily from mass food
processing and distribution, and they are showing a continued increase
with global population growth. Composting, landfilling, and production
of animal feed are the most mature handling approaches to food waste
treatment (Capson-Tojo et al., 2016). However, these processes show to
be fairly expensive and produce relatively low value-added products,
aside from known environmental concerns. Recent researches argue
that FW can be used as nutrients or fuel sources. Examples involving FW
valorization deal with compounds extraction via pretreatment using
hydrolysis and the production of bio-based chemicals (Li et al., 2018).
Other biotechnologies that utilize FW to produce energy are enzymatic
digestion and thermochemical conversion methodologies (Banerjee
et al., 2018; Capson-Tojo et al., 2016; Carmona-Cabello et al., 2018).
However, investigations proving the practicability of valorization
strategies are still minimal. Marketability, profitability, and economies
of scale are still needed to be performed as well (Cristóbal et al., 2018).
3.3.2. Biomass (agricultural) waste
Wastes and residues from agricultural products and processes such
as bagasse, olive mills, grapeseed, corn stover, fruit and vegetable
scraps, and manure have also been investigated for their potential to
produce biochemicals and biofuels under a biorefinery context. The
literature suggests that the production of low-value compounds like
fertilizers and energy have been the current and main applications of
these feedstocks (Awasthi et al., 2019; Bosco et al., 2017). Only recently
that exploiting other biochemicals present in these materials has be-
come a motivation for research due to their compelling economic
benefits (Lucarini et al., 2018). As many of them are lignocellulosic
biomass in nature, they can also be recycled and converted into value-
added biocompounds and bioproducts. Hence, similar methods and
protocols applicable to lignocellulosic feedstocks regarding pretreat-
ment, fractionation, and isolation of bioactive compounds have been
applied to these kinds of materials as well. They include various sol-
vent, microwave-assisted, ultrasound-assisted, and supercritical fluid
extractions (Zuin and Ramin, 2018). In an effort to improve their sus-
tainability, several of these processes are also being integrated with
commercial establishments such as in first-generation biofuel plants
(Ferreira et al., 2018).
3.3.3. Industrial waste
Increasing demand for any primary industrial product leads to a
considerable increase in the output of by-products and wastewaters,
which necessitates for recycling or treatment. For instance, biodiesel
plants produce high amounts of glycerol with high levels of impurities
which render it to be of lower-value (Manara and Zabaniotou, 2016).
The metals and minerals industry also generates voluminous amounts
 Table 4
The case studies of biorefinery in circular bioeconomy.
Type of Biorefinery Biomass Capacity size Strategic technology Valuation or valorization Location (Regional Remarks on circular economy References
sensitivity)
A.T. Ubando, et al.

Algal Macroalgae (Fucus − Biosorption Reintroduction of biorefinery Not specified (Yes) Circular economy drives the sustainable Filote et al. (2019)
spiralis) waste/ residues in the ‘industry use of minimum amount of resources to
chain’, Biosoption of lead by generate a minimum amount of waste.
macroalgae residues
Algal Macroalgae (Laminaria − High-value bioproducts extraction, and Integration of biomass conversion Ireland (Yes) Minimizing wastes while producing Tedesco and Stokes
and Fucus) anaerobic Digestion processes to seaweed biorefinery renewable energy (2017)
Algal Macroalgae (Laminaria − Anaerobic (co-) digestion Utilizing algal waste with other China (Yes) Integrated biorefinery approach Osman et al.
japonica or kelp) rich-carbon crop residues generates value-added products which (2019)
help achieve circular economies.
Algal Microalgae − Extraction by either solvent, ultrasound, Exploring biodiversity and Mexico (Yes) Low carbon economy, resource Sosa-Hernández
microwave, or supercritical fluids, potentials of microalgal species, efficiency, green investments, et al. (2019)
bioconverion by either fermentation, or and optimizing the currently technological innovation, more
transesterification available resources and processes recycling, green jobs, poverty
eradication, and social inclusion
Algal Seaweed − Bioproducts or biocompounds extraction, Fractionation and recovery of Not specified (Yes) Biorefinery processing approach Torres et al. (2019)
hydrolysis, anaerobic digestion, valuable products and using them reinforces the concepts of circular
fermentation, combustion, liquifaction, in multistage cascade processes economy
gasification, and pyrolysis
Lignocellulosic Dry wood 83.3 t/h Enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation, Integration of processes based on Not specified (Yes) A biorefinery that generates multiple Bello et al. (2018)
acetic acid, and furfural recovery the product fractionation of bioproducts should satisfy
biomass environmental, economical, and
technical aspects.
Lignocellulosic Sugar beet pulp − Material refining, extraction, hydrolysis, Fractionation and bioconversion Not specified (Yes) Product diversification by developing Alexandri et al.
and bioconversion to value-added products. new alternatives leads to improved (2019); Gonzalez-

11
profitability through additional markets, Garcia et al. (2018)
but must be aligned with the principles of
sustainability.
Lignocellulosic Waste paper − Acid/enzymatic hydrolysis Cellulose nanofiber films Europe (Yes) Using bio-based products and Adu et al. (2018)
incorporated as composite biodegradable materials over fossil fuels
reinforcement in building will mitigate climate change
materials, packaging applications, strategically.
electronic components, and
biofuels
Lignocellulosic/ Stillage, corn stover, − Microbial conversion, and cogeneration Integration of lignocellulosic USA/ Brazil (Yes) Incorporating wastes as co-feeds in Ferreira et al.
Waste wheat straw, wheat bran, systems residues, and other waste established commercial bioprocessing (2018)
vinasse, bagasse, and substrates into first generation plants positively impacts circular
dairy waste ethanol plants. bioeconomy.
Lignocellulosic/ Sugarcane bagasse, and − Solid-state fermentation Bioproduction of aromatic Not specified (No) More processes integrated for a particular Martínez et al.
Waste sugar beet molasses compounds by utilizing agro- technology makes it more sustainable (2018)
industrial wastes and residues and feasible towards industrial
development.
Waste Sludge − Ph-based extraction/ recovery method An effective extraction method for Not specified (No) Effective recovery of desired substances Lotti et al. (2019)
the recovery of extracellular in waste streams stimulate exploration of
polymeric substances in anammox their applicative potential in the context
biofilms of circular economy.
Waste Agro-industrial wastes − Extraction/ processing utilizing either Integrated extraction and Not specified (No) Obtaining natural products from agro- Zuin and Ramin
solvents, microwave, ultrasonication, or purification, utilizing renewable industrial wastes are hotspots for (2018)
supercritical fluid materials from different origins. innovation of biorefineries.
Waste Carbon dioxide, and − Microbial electrochemical processes Converting waste carbon Not specified (No) Treating wastes as a way to generate Jiang et al. (2019)
organic wastes materials into value-added marketable products that are
products economically feasible and in tune with
environmental sustainability.
(continued on next page)
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
 Table 4 (continued)

Type of Biorefinery Biomass Capacity size Strategic technology Valuation or valorization Location (Regional Remarks on circular economy References
sensitivity)
A.T. Ubando, et al.

Waste Food − Anaerobic digestion, anaerobic Re-use and recycling options, Not specified (No) Processes should be optimally integrated Capson-Tojo et al.
fermentation, composting, and animal production and utilization of main to obtain the most out of the biomass (2016)
feeding and co-products utilized.
Waste Food − Oil extraction, esterification, and Conversion of oil content into Córdoba, Spain (No) Recycling residues help reduce costs and Carmona-Cabello
transesterification biodiesel, possibility to work with mitigate exhaust emissions from et al. (2018)
mixtures of oils from different conventional fuels
food service establishments to
produce biodiesel
Waste Food − Acidogenesis, fermentation, Enabling bioprocesses that yields Not specified (No) Circular bioeconomy is driven by the Dahiya et al.
methanogenesis, solventogenesis, various bioproducts can be increasing need for energy and materials. (2018)
photosynthesis, oleaginous metabolism, utilized for valorization of It requires generation of a wide spectrum
and bio-electrogenesis biomass of biobased products from renewable
feedstocks and must be approached with
interdisciplinarity.
Waste Food waste − Chemical (acid or alkali) or enzymatic Bioplastics production utilizing Not specified (No) Circular economy promotes the use of Kaur et al. (2018)
hydrolysis, oxidation, and melt sugar constituents in the feedstock resources in a way that it retains its value
polymerization for as long as possible and is “restorative
and regenerative by intention and
design.”
Waste General waste stream − Pyrolysis, fermentation, gasification, Production of energy (fuel, power, Not specified (No) Waste biorefineries have potential to Nizami et al.
anaerobic digestion, combustion, refuse and heat), and value-added drive circular economy in developing (2017)
derived fuel, plasma arc gasification, products. countries.
enzymatic conversion, hydrolysis, and
liquefaction
Waste Glycerol 100 kt/y Chemocatalytic technologies Production of value-added Hong Kong (Yes) Biorefineries heavily rely on estimating D’Angelo et al.

12
products, costs and evaluating environmental (2018)
impacts to optimally integrate processes
and product streams.
Waste Glycerol − Combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, steam Energetic co-valorization and Greece (Yes) Industrial symbiosis assists towards the Manara and
reforming, hydrogenolysis, dehydration, industrial symbiosis with direction of ciruclar bioeconomy and is Zabaniotou (2016)
selective oxidation, epoxidation, conventional or renewable fuels beneficial to companies involved that are
transesterification, carboxylation, for combined heat and power trying to improve their environmental
selective etherification, and generation performance.
polymerization
Waste Grape seeds − Enzymatic treatment, extraction via Separation and recovery of useful Italy (Yes) Exploiting wastes to discover and obtain Lucarini et al.
microwave, ultrasound, supercritical CO2, constituents in wastes higher value bioproducts before using (2018)
sub- and supercritical fluids, and high- them for energy production
voltage electrical discharges
Waste Lignocellulosic waste − Fungal, bacterial, and enzymatic Upgrading the value of Not specified (No) Maximizing the use of wastes by Liguori and Faraco
treatment lignocellulosic wastes by capitalizing on opportunities to generate (2016)
integrating them in a biorefinery new products and energy.
platform
Waste Municipal solid waste 0.1–0.5 g EtOH/ g Fermentation and transesterification Integration of both biodiesel and Africa, America, Valorization of biomass material is of Barampouti et al.
OFMSW, 4.4–29% bioethanol production processes Asia, Europe (Yes) utmost importance in circular economy. (2019)
g Biodiesel/100 g
OFMSW
Waste Municipal solid waste − Gasification and pyrolysis Substitution to new raw materials Not specified (No) Circular economy is different from Iaquaniello et al.
that provide services concerning recycling as it considers the use of waste (2018)
fuels, chemicals, and fertilizers to maximize its value and to minimize
the use of new resources.
(continued on next page)
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
 Table 4 (continued)

Type of Biorefinery Biomass Capacity size Strategic technology Valuation or valorization Location (Regional Remarks on circular economy References
sensitivity)
A.T. Ubando, et al.

Waste Municipal solid waste, − Semi- and solid-state fermentation, Production of high value-added Not specified (No) Utilizing resources by integrated and Maina et al. (2017)
and food supply chain enzymatic hydrolysis, and microbial compounds, fuels and chemicals. sustainable approaches such as in
waste bioconversion biorefineries, which create multiple
marketable primary and secondary
products.
Waste Newsprint − Ioncell-F process, and alkaline polyol Conversion of low refined waste Not specified (No) Circular economy necessitates the need Ma et al. (2018)
treatment cellulosic materials to high quality for sustainable technologies and
man-made cellulosic fibers production systems.
Waste Oil mill − Pyrolysis, and acid-base extraction Separating and obtaining value- Not specified (No) Exploring novel waste usage is a first step del Pozo et al.
added chemical groups towards attaining circular economy and (2018)
bioeconomy.
Waste Olive mill solid waste − High-temperature thermal pretreatment, Value-added compounds recovery Not specified (No) Consideration of wastes as a by-product Serrano et al.
anaerobic digestion and energy production with high interest, and not as a waste (2017)
Waste Organic manure − Aerobic, anaerobic, and thermochemical Overall manure recycling for China (No) Circular economy is a counteractive Awasthi et al.
processes multi-functional utilizations measure that is necessary to limit global (2019)
warming.
Waste Pineapple − Extraction, purification, and chemical/ Waste utilization as a compost, Costa Rica, Brazil, Circular economy creates opportunities Banerjee et al.
enzymatic conversions animal feed, or substrate for Philippines, India, to build new industries that manufacture (2018)
extraction of high-value Thailand, and products required for major industries
components Indonesia (No) such as food or pharmaceuticals.
Waste Protein waste − Biotransformation, and metabolic Bio-based production of fuels and (No) Surplus of wastes necessitates for Li et al. (2018)
engineering bulk chemicals recycling.
Waste Rapeseed meal − Bioactive compounds extraction by either Bioactive compounds isolation China, India, Biorefineries promote total utilization Quinn et al. (2017)
solvent, enzyme, microwave-assisted, from a by-product of low Canada, and Europe and recycling of biomass which would
pulse-electric field, and high-voltage economic value (Yes) otherwise be considered wastes.

13
electrical discharge
Waste Spent coffee grounds − Compounds extraction, Possibilities for converting spent Not specified (No) Costs of final products depend on the Karmee (2018);
transesterification, pyrolysis, and coffee grounds to fuels and value- current and future technological Zabaniotou and
anaerobic digestion added chemical compounds. improvements, as well as the production Kamaterou (2019)
scale.
Cascading approaches where higher
value products will be generated first
should be prioritized over energy
production to maximize biomass
feedstock value.
Scalability would be highly affected by
several logistical concerns such as
collection, transport, and storage of raw
materials.
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
A.T. Ubando, et al.
of wastewater in their processes (Sadhukhan et al., 2018). Policies and
incentives aligned with the concept of a circular economy heavily
motivate these industries to explore or develop waste utilization and/or
treatment strategies.
Methods and protocols for the effective and robust recovery of de-
sired substances from by-products and wastewater also draw significant
attention as they generate opportunities for exploration of other po-
tential applications (Lotti et al., 2019). Bioactive compounds extraction
and biomaterials production have been demonstrated in several in-
dustrial wastes such as glycerol (D’Angelo et al., 2018), beet pulp
(Alexandri et al., 2019), and paper (Adu et al., 2018). Deployment of
industrial symbiosis, wherein the wastes of one industry could be used
as raw material for another industry, could also be one of the feasible
options that could reduce their dependence on natural resources
(European Commission, 2018). The idea of a bioeconomy has also in-
spired opportunities for cogeneration that would allow the private
sector to profit from product diversification while improving its en-
vironmental performance (Manara and Zabaniotou, 2016). Although
economic and logistical concerns have always been major setbacks from
their actual implementation (D’Angelo et al., 2018), further technolo-
gical improvements to optimize systems and processes are expected to
help drive the increase in their anticipatory production scales (Karmee,
2018).
3.3.4. Solid waste
Solid wastes, especially in highly urbanized areas, have always been
a major concern of governing bodies due to their vast impacts on the
environment. The concept of a circular economy has also significantly
changed the direction of waste handling and treatment from the con-
ventional disposal and recycling practices into highly efficient utiliza-
tion approach towards the ultimate goal of a zero-waste economy
(Mohan et al., 2016). The composition of municipal solid waste (MSW)
is highly dependent on the source, collection, and socio-economic ac-
tivities of a particular region (Maina et al., 2017). The occurrence of
various substances in MSW streams have provided great interest over
the years to develop strategies to effectively use or partition these
substances, and translate them into positive environmental impacts or
potential economic revenue. For instance, the organic content present
in MSW has been a promising free energy source because it does not
incur additional costs in comparison to other biomass materials that
require their own cultivation and harvesting (Iaquaniello et al., 2018).
Incineration provides a practical conversion pathway to generate heat,
chemicals, and energy from MSW (Iaquaniello et al., 2018). There have
also been research efforts that attempted to effectively quantify and
reclaim precious metals, especially from electronic wastes (Morf et al.,
2013; Rana et al., 2019). Although, the effective recovery of desired
substances in MSW has been limited due to their inherent impurities
(Sadhukhan and Martinez-Hernandez, 2017), effective process design
and integration to produce multiple bioproducts such as chemicals,
metals, energy, and fertilizers have been demonstrated to exhibit fea-
sibility in terms of techno-economic aspects (Sadhukhan et al., 2016).
4. Current challenges and future perspectives
Key strategic positions of different biorefineries discussed under the
circular economy concept are described in Table 5. Considering the
number of studies examined, wastes have been observed to be the
driving force in pushing the frontiers of biorefinery for the circular
economy. The utilization of wastes has direct answers to the three facets
of the triple bottom line framework of sustainability. Aside from di-
rectly addressing the issue of environmental pollution, the feedstock
does not necessarily add to the cost of production as they are readily
available. In addition, unlike algal biomass which requires discrete
cultivation and harvesting stages of production, biorefineries catered to
treat wastes are likely to have a steady and reliable stream of raw
materials supply year-round. It is also more socially acceptable among
14
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
the two major biorefinery setups because the problem of waste man-
agement is well-perceived by the general public already. Hence, the
research agenda could focus more on developing valorization techni-
ques and improving the current methods of collection, storage, segre-
gation, and handling of the material prior to use in biorefinery appli-
cations.
Some studies have also suggested that, in order to fully operate
under a zero-waste initiative, the totality of biomass must be utilized as
holistically as possible, likely in a cascading approach (Dahiya et al.,
2018; Zabaniotou and Kamaterou, 2019). To maximize economic pro-
spects, by-products produced from primary biorefinery processes need
to be considered for further processing to produce less value-added
products rather than immediately turning them into compost or fuel
which are deemed to be of lowest valued product. It was also found out
in the review that a number of valorization approaches are shared by
many feedstocks. Emerging technologies and processes must therefore
be capable of handling more than one kind of feedstock as it would also
address the seasonality of various feedstocks and therefore reducing the
downtime period of biorefineries.
The geographic aspects of biomass in relation to biorefineries also
pose an important dilemma, which needs to be addressed in future
sustainability studies comprehensively. In actual practice, aspects of
sourcing, collection, transport, and storage of input materials and by-
products need to be heavily considered and accounted for as they would
have a direct impact on the sustainable utilization of feedstocks
(Cardoen et al., 2015). Many studies conducted about biomass valor-
ization, especially at the lab-scale, have assumed that the source of
input materials would be readily available and in sufficient quantity
when scaled up. As seen in Table 6, actual biorefinery plants published
in scientific literature in existence have been very few. In order to fully
realize the potential of biorefinery systems for circular bioeconomy and
observe its promising benefits in actual scenarios, further investigations
regarding actual practice are highly recommended to be performed.
Logistical concerns would bear increasing importance when integrating
different processes, feedstock sources, and distribution with concerned
industrial sectors.
As concluded by Temmes and Peck (2019), there is still a huge gap
between the expectations of circularity and the actual performance of
biorefineries. The definitive roles stakeholders – local and international
government agencies, academic community, and private companies, as
well as their interrelationships remain to be grey areas which necessi-
tate for systematic and comprehensive investigations. Policy frame-
works and incentive systems need to be aligned with recent scientific
outcomes, which must be relayed accordingly to the concerned private
sectors. In turn, they, initiate deployment of these innovations into
effective practice, and later on provide immediate feedback regarding
possible areas of improvement. Lastly, sustainability assessment models
must try to utilize real or actual data to decrease the number of un-
certainties or assumptions in order to objectively evaluate actual bior-
efinery setups.
5. Conclusions
Different biorefinery models with the prospect of circular bioec-
onomy have been comprehensively reviewed. Using various types of
sustainability assessment tools, the biorefinery plays an instrumental
role in proliferating circular bioeconomy. With the strategic im-
plementation of biorefineries in various industrial sectors, the effec-
tiveness in the circular bioeconomy is quantified by the various sus-
tainability assessment tools. The results revealed that the socio-
economic aspect influences most of the barriers for the critical adoption
of biorefineries in circular bioeconomy which necessitates policy in-
tervention. Biomass wastes have driven the boundaries of biorefineries
in circular bioeconomy adding value to secondary products.
 A.T. Ubando, et al.

Table 5
The strengths and weaknesses of the biorefinery case studies in circular bioeconomy.
Type of Biorefinery Sustainability Assessment Biorefinery Strengths Biorefinery Weaknesses Recommendation Stakeholders References
Tool Used

Lignocellulosic (Dry Life cycle (eco-efficiency) Indicator for sustainability in terms of
wood) assessment monetary benefit allowed integration of
economic growth and environmental
protection.
Lignocellulosic Analytic hierarchy process Demonstrates positive socio-economic
(Sugar) impacts in terms of product
diversification, and profitability
Lignocellulosic/ Waste Techno-economic analysis, Integration of 1st and 2nd generation
and life cycle assessment ethanol plants lowers investment risks,
and environmental impacts when
compared to stand-alone systems.
Waste (Food) Life cycle assessment Cascading the use of resources via
several reuse, recycling, and bioenergy
conversion stages
Waste (Food) Life cycle assessment and Biomass feedstocks are transformed into
Issues concerning biomass
pretreatment and process energy
requirement
Needs more appropriate methods to
identify the level of sustainability of
the whole system
Economic feasibility is dependent on
the price of co-products.
Inconsistency with regards to the
quality of materials, lack of
investigation in the industrial scale.
Collection, monitoring, and process
Expanding the range of integrated biorefinery Private companies Bello et al. (2018)
processes
Develop sustainability indicators specific for − García-Bustamante
social aspects, as well as aggregation methods et al. (2018)
that incorporate the facets of environmental,
economic, and social domains
Further characterizations of physical − Ferreira et al.
processes and parameters (2018)
Developing valorization approaches that are Intergovernmental Corrado and Sala
practical and holistic organizations and European (2018)
legislation
Promote public acceptance into modern Government agencies, Capson-Tojo et al.

15
cost value-added products and energy with
mostly zero-waste production processes.
Anaerobic processes do not generate
harmful emissions.
Waste (Food) Techno-economic analysis Integrated biorefineries utilizing wastes
resulted in reduced wastes, optimal use
of process equipment, and extensive
production of value-added products.
Waste (Food) Techno-economic and High compositional homogeneity makes
profitability analysis it a viable resource for obtaining high-
value products.
Waste (Municipal solid Economic value analysis Generates wealth from valorization of
waste) and life cycle assessment wastes that has the potential to become
sustainable on its own.
Waste (Slag) Environmental and social Planned biorefinery investment would
sustainability assessment have a significantly positive effect on
the local regional economy
Waste (Wastewater) Dynamic simulation, life Aside from pollution control by
cycle assessment, and wastewater treatment, provides
techno-economic multiple benefits including new
assessment products synthesis, and fossil-free
processes
control lead to inefficient biogas
production and utilization.
Low technology readiness, profitability
is heavily dependent on prevailing
market prices of the products
generated.
Feedstock impurities
Management and reporting approaches
with regard to sustainability,
greenhouse gas emissions monitoring,
life-cycle thinking and awareness of
circularity
recycling approaches. private companies, and (2016)
Perform more research for process farmers
optimization that satisfy economic and
environmental indicators.
− Demichelis et al.
(2018)
Performing market analysis before actual European food waste Cristóbal et al.
deployment of biorefineries, optimize industries (2018)
logistical concerns such as sourcing and
transport of feedstock to be utilized.
Evaluate the economics of scaling-up to − Sadhukhan and
properly transition into commercialization. Martinez-
Hernandez (2017)
Development of performance indicators that − Husgafvel et al.
would encompass location-specific (2017)
differences in terms of market areas, research
and development, and legal aspects.
Creating more opportunities in resource − Shemfe et al.
recovery and productivity from waste in the (2018)
context of circular economy.
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
A.T. Ubando, et al.
Table 6
The summary of actual biorefineries with capacity size.
Type of Biorefinery Biomass Size or Capacity
Lignocellulosic Dry Wood 100 Mt/day
Lignocellulosic Dry Wood 70 kg/batch
Lignocellulosic Wheat Straw 70 t/day
Waste/Algal Wastewater, Microalgae Biomass 2.2 kg VSS/day,
Reclaimed water
500 L/h
Credit authorship contribution statement
Aristotle T. Ubando: Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing -
original draft. Charles B. Felix: Writing - original draft. Wei-Hsin
Chen: Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing, Project admin-
istration, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgment is addressed to the Ministry of Science and
Technology of Taiwan, R.O.C., for funding the research under the grant
numbers MOST 106-2923-E-006-002-MY3 and MOST 107-2811-E-006-
529. Arch. Rose Marie Ibañez-Ubando is greatly acknowledged for the
enhancement of the figures. This research is also supported in part by
Higher Education Sprout Project, Ministry of Education to the
Headquarters of University Advancement at National Cheng Kung
University (NCKU).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122585.
References
Adu, C., Jolly, M., Thakur, V.K., 2018. Exploring new horizons for paper recycling: a
review of biomaterials and biorefinery feedstocks derived from wastepaper. Curr.
Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 13, 21–26.
Alexandri, M., Schneider, R., Papapostolou, H., Ladakis, D., Koutinas, A., Venus, J., 2019.
Restructuring the conventional sugar beet industry into a novel biorefinery: fractio-
nation and bioconversion of sugar beet pulp into succinic acid and value-added co-
products. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7 (7), 6569–6579.
Almeida, J.R.M., Fávaro, L.C.L., Quirino, B.F., 2012. Biodiesel biorefinery: opportunities
and challenges for microbial production of fuels and chemicals from glycerol waste.
Biotechnol. Biofuels 5, 1–16.
Alves, C.M., Valk, M., de Jong, S., Bonomi, A., van der Wielen, L.A.M., Mussatto, S.I.,
2017. Techno-economic assessment of biorefi nery technologies for aviation biofuels
supply chains in Brazil. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 11, 67–91.
Ansari, F.A., Singh, P., Guldhe, A., Bux, F., 2017. Microalgal cultivation using aquaculture
wastewater: integrated biomass generation and nutrient remediation. Algal Res. 21,
169–177.
Awasthi, M.K., Sarsaiya, S., Wainaina, S., Rajendran, K., Kumar, S., Quan, W., Duan, Y.,
Awasthi, S.K., Chen, H., Pandey, A., Zhang, Z., Jain, A., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2019. A
critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable circular
bioeconomy: technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and future per-
spectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 111, 115–131.
Azapagic, A., 2014. Sustainability considerations for integrated biorefineries. Trends
Biotechnol. 32 (1), 1–4.
Balanay, R., Halog, A., 2018. Tools for Circular Economy. Elsevier Ltd.
Banerjee, S., Ranganathan, V., Patti, A., Arora, A., 2018. Valorisation of pineapple wastes
for food and therapeutic applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 82, 60–70.
Barampouti, E.M., Mai, S., Malamis, D., Moustakas, K., Loizidou, M., 2019. Liquid bio-
fuels from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: a review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 110, 298–314.
Baruah, J., Nath, B.K., Sharma, R., Kumar, S., Deka, R.C., Baruah, D.C., Kalita, E., 2018.
Recent trends in the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for value-added
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
Bioenergy Products Location References
Ethanol, lignin, furfural, xylose, and acetic acid Canada Bello et al. (2018)
Glucose, lignin, and xylose Germany Bello et al. (2018)
Ethanol Spain Bello et al. (2018)
Biomethane Spain Uggetti et al. (2018)
products. Frontiers in. Energy Res. 6 (DEC), 1–19.
Bastiaens, L., Van Roy, S., Thomassen, G., Elst, K., 2017. Biorefinery of Algae. Elsevier
Ltd.
Bastidas-Oyanedel, J.R., Schmidt, J.E., 2018. Increasing profits in food waste biorefinery-
a techno-economic analysis. Energies 11 (6).
Bastidas-Oyanedel, J.R., Schmidt, J.E., 2019. In: Techno-Economic Analysis of
Fermentation-Based Biorefinery: Creating Value from Food Residues. Springer, Cham,
Switzerland, pp. 535–552.
Basu, P., 2018. Biomass Characteristics. Elsevier Inc.
Bello, S., Ríos, C., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., 2018. Comparative evaluation of lig-
nocellulosic biorefinery scenarios under a life-cycle assessment approach. Biofuels
Bioprod. Biorefin. 12 (6), 1047–1064.
Birner, R., 2018. Bioeconomy Concepts. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 17–38.
Bosco, F., Casale, A., Gribaudo, G., Mollea, C., Malucelli, G., 2017. Nucleic acids from
agro-industrial wastes: a green recovery method for fire retardant applications. Ind.
Crops Prod. 108 (August 2016), 208–218.
Capson-Tojo, G., Rouez, M., Crest, M., Steyer, J.P., Delgenès, J.P., Escudié, R., 2016. Food
waste valorization via anaerobic processes: a review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol.
15 (3), 499–547.
Cardoen, D., Joshi, P., Diels, L., Sarma, P.M., Pant, D., 2015. Agriculture biomass in India:
Part 1. Estimation and characterization. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 39–48.
Carmona-Cabello, M., Leiva-Candia, D., Castro-Cantarero, J.L., Pinzi, S., Dorado, M.P.,
2018. Valorization of food waste from restaurants by transesterification of the lipid
fraction. Fuel 215, 492–498.
Carus, M., Dammer, L., 2018. The circular bioeconomy-concepts, opportunities, and
limitations. Ind. Biotechnol. 14 (2), 83–91.
Chandak, S.P., Chari, K.R., Memon, M.A., 2015. Converting waste agricultural biomass
into energy: experiences and lessons learnt from a capacity building and technology
demonstration project in india. J. Jpn Inst. Energy 94 (10), 1129–1147.
Chen, S., Wen, Z., Liao, W., Liu, C., Kincaid, R.L., Harrison, J.H., Elliott, D.C., Brown,
M.D., Stevens, D.J., 2005. Studies into using manure in a biorefinery concept. In:
Davison, B.H., Evans, B.R., Finkelstein, M., McMillan, J.D. (Eds.), Twenty-Sixth
Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals. Humana Press, Totowa NJ,
pp. 999–1015.
Chertow, M.R., 2007. “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1), 11–30.
Cherubini, F., 2010. The biorefinery concept: Using biomass instead of oil for producing
energy and chemicals. Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (7), 1412–1421.
Chew, K.W., Yap, J.Y., Show, P.L., Suan, N.H., Juan, J.C., Ling, T.C., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S.,
2017. Microalgae biorefinery: high value products perspectives. Bioresour. Technol.
229, 53–62.
Chong, K.J. 2011. A Methodology for the Generation and Evaluation of Biorefinery
Process Chains in Order to Identify the Most Promising Biorefineries for the EU, pp.
1–268.
Cinelli, M., Coles, S.R., Kirwan, K., 2014. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria de-
cision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol. Ind. 46, 138–148.
Corrado, S., Sala, S., 2018. Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies.
Springer International Publishing.
Cristóbal, J., Caldeira, C., Corrado, S., Sala, S., 2018. Techno-economic and profitability
analysis of food waste biorefineries at European level. Bioresour. Technol. 259
(January), 244–252.
D'Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P.,
Matthies, B.D., Toppinen, A., 2017. Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative
analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Cleaner Prod. 168, 716–734.
D’Angelo, S.C., Dall’Ara, A., Mondelli, C., Pérez-Ramírez, J., Papadokonstantakis, S.,
2018. Techno-economic analysis of a glycerol biorefinery. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6
(12), 16563–16572.
Dahiya, S., Kumar, A.N., Shanthi Sravan, J., Chatterjee, S., Sarkar, O., Mohan, S.V., 2018.
Food waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour.
Technol. 248 (Pt A), 2–12.
De Bhowmick, G., Sarmah, A.K., Sen, R., 2018. Lignocellulosic biorefinery as a model for
sustainable development of biofuels and value added products. Bioresour. Technol.
247, 1144–1154.
De Bhowmick, G., Sarmah, A.K., Sen, R., 2019. Zero-waste algal biorefinery for bioenergy
and biochar: a green leap towards achieving energy and environmental sustainability.
Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2467–2482.
del Pozo, C., Bartrolí, J., Puy, N., Fàbregas, E., 2018. Separation of value-added chemical
groups from bio-oil of olive mill waste. Ind. Crops Prod. 125 (July), 160–167.
Delbecq, F., Wang, Y., Muralidhara, A., El Ouardi, K., Marlair, G., Len, C., 2018.
Hydrolysis of hemicellulose and derivatives-a review of recent advances in the pro-
duction of furfural. Front. Chem. 6, 146.
Demichelis, F., Fiore, S., Pleissner, D., Venus, J., 2018. Technical and economic assess-
ment of food waste valorization through a biorefinery chain. Renew. Sustain. Energy
16
A.T. Ubando, et al.
Rev. 94 (June), 38–48.
Dufossé, K., Ben Aoun, W., Gabrielle, B., 2017. Life-cycle assessment of agricultural
feedstock for biorefineries. Life-Cycle Assess. Biorefineries 77–96.
El-Halwagi, M.M., 2013. Conserving Material Resources through Process Integration:
Material Conservation Networks. Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Enriquez, J., 1998. Genomics and the world's economy. Science 281 (5379), 925–926.
Esteban, J., Ladero, M., 2018. Food waste as a source of value-added chemicals and
materials: a biorefinery perspective. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53 (5), 1095–1108.
European Commission. 2017. Expert Group Report: Review of the EU Bioeconomy
Strategy and its Action Plan.
European Commission. 2018. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the
connection between economy, society and the environment, Brussels, Belgium.
European Union, 2007. En Route to the Knowledged-Based Bio-Economy. German
Presidency of the Council of the European. Cologne, Union (EU).
Ferreira, A.F., 2017. Biorefinery Concept. In: Rabaçal, M., Ferreira, A.F., Silva, C.A.M.,
Costa, M. (Eds.), Biorefineries: Targeting Energy, High Value Products and Waste
Valorisation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–20.
Ferreira, J.A., Brancoli, P., Agnihotri, S., Bolton, K., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2018. A review of
integration strategies of lignocelluloses and other wastes in 1st generation bioethanol
processes. Process Biochem. 75, 173–186.
Filote, C., Volf, I., Santos, S.C.R., Botelho, C.M.S., 2019. Bioadsorptive removal of Pb(II)
from aqueous solution by the biorefinery waste of Fucus spiralis. Sci. Total Environ.
648, 1201–1209.
Frosch, R.A., Gallopoulos, N.E., 2010. Strategies for manufacturing. Sci. Am. 261 (3),
144–152.
Fund, C., El-Chichakli, B., Patermann, C., Dieckhoff, P. 2015. Bioeconomy Policy:
Synopsis of National Strategies around the World.
García-Bustamante, C.A., Aguilar-Rivera, N., Zepeda-Pirrón, M., Armendáriz-Arnez, C.,
2018. Development of indicators for the sustainability of the sugar industry. Environ.
Soc. Econ. Stud. 6 (4), 22–38.
Gavrilescu, M. 2014. Biorefinery Systems: An Overview. Bioenergy Research: Advances
and Applications, 219-241.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Cleaner
Prod. 114, 11–32.
Giampietro, M., 2019. On the circular bioeconomy and decoupling: implications for
sustainable growth. Ecol. Econ. 162 (May), 143–156.
Gnansounou, E., Pandey, A., 2017. Preface. In: Gnansounou, E., Pandey, A. (Eds.), Life-
Cycle Assessment of Biorefineries. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1–312.
Gnansounou, E., Raman, J.K., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of Algal Biorefinery.
Elsevier B.V.
Gonzalez-Garcia, S., Gullón, B., Moreira, M.T., 2018. Environmental assessment of bior-
efinery processes for the valorization of lignocellulosic wastes into oligosaccharides.
J. Cleaner Prod. 172, 4066–4073.
Halog, A., Manik, Y., 2011. Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life
cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3 (2), 469–499.
Hasenheit, M., Gerdes, H., Kiresiewa, Z., Beekman, V. 2016. Summary report on the so-
cial, economic and environmental impacts of the bioeconomy Promoting stakeholder
engagement and public awareness for a participative governance of the European
bioeconomy.
Hasunuma, T., Okazaki, F., Okai, N., Hara, K.Y., Ishii, J., Kondo, A., 2013. A review of
enzymes and microbes for lignocellulosic biorefinery and the possibility of their
application to consolidated bioprocessing technology. Bioresour. Technol. 135,
513–522.
Hemalatha, M., Sarkar, O., Venkata Mohan, S., 2019. Self-sustained azolla-biorefinery
platform for valorization of various biobased products with circular-cascading design
strategy. Chem. Eng. J. 373 (April), 1042–1053.
Husgafvel, R., Poikela, K., Honkatukia, J., Dahl, O., 2017. Development and piloting of
sustainability assessment metrics for arctic process industry in Finland-The bior-
efinery investment and slag processing service cases. Sustainability (Switzerland)
9 (10).
Hytönen, E., Stuart, P., 2011. Techno-economic assessment and risk analysis of bior-
efinery processes. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 29, 1376–1380.
Iaquaniello, G., Centi, G., Salladini, A., Palo, E., Perathoner, S., 2018. Waste to chemicals
for a circular economy. Chem. A Eur. J. 24 (46), 11831–11839.
Ingle, K., Vitkin, E., Robin, A., Yakhini, Z., Mishori, D., Golberg, A., 2018. Macroalgae
biorefinery from kappaphycus alvarezii: conversion modeling and performance pre-
diction for india and philippines as examples. Bioenergy Res. 11 (1), 22–32.
Isoni, V., Kumbang, D., Sharratt, P.N., Khoo, H.H., 2018. Biomass to levulinic acid: a
techno-economic analysis and sustainability of biorefinery processes in Southeast
Asia. J. Environ. Manage. 214, 267–275.
Jiang, L.L., Zhou, J.J., Quan, C.S., Xiu, Z.L., 2017. Advances in industrial microbiome
based on microbial consortium for biorefinery. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 4 (1).
Jiang, R., Ingle, K.N., Golberg, A., 2016. Macroalgae (seaweed) for liquid transportation
biofuel production: what is next? Algal Res. 14, 48–57.
Jiang, Y., May, H.D., Lu, L., Liang, P., Huang, X., Ren, Z.J., 2019. Carbon dioxide and
organic waste valorization by microbial electrosynthesis and electro-fermentation.
Water Res. 149, 42–55.
Jin, M., Slininger, P.J., Dien, B.S., Waghmode, S., Moser, B.R., Orjuela, A., Sousa, L.D.C.,
Balan, V., 2015. Microbial lipid-based lignocellulosic biorefinery: feasibility and
challenges. Trends Biotechnol. 33 (1), 43–54.
Junqueira, T.L., Chagas, M.F., Gouveia, V.L.R., Rezende, M.C.A.F., Watanabe, M.D.B.,
Jesus, C.D.F., Cavalett, O., Milanez, A.Y., Bonomi, A., 2017. Techno-economic ana-
lysis and climate change impacts of sugarcane biorefineries considering different time
horizons. Biotechnol. Biofuels 10 (1), 1–12.
Karmee, S.K., 2018. A spent coffee grounds based biorefinery for the production of
17
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
biofuels, biopolymers, antioxidants and biocomposites. Waste Manage. 72, 240–254.
Kaur, G., Uisan, K., Ong, K.L., Ki Lin, C.S., 2018. Recent trends in green and sustainable
chemistry & waste valorisation: rethinking plastics in a circular economy. Curr. Opin.
Green Sustainable Chem. 9, 30–39.
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens,
A., Hekkert, M., 2018. Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the european
union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 150, 264–272.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232.
Klein-Marcuschamer, D., Simmons, B.A., Blanch, H.W., 2011. Techno-economic analysis
of a lignocellulosic ethanol biorefi nery with ionic liquid pre-treatment. Biofuels
Bioprod. Biorefin. 5, 562–569.
Klemeš, J.J. 2013. Process Integration (PI): An Introduction. Handbook of Process
Integration (PI): Minimisation of Energy and Water Use, Waste and Emissions, pp.
3–27.
Lauer, M. 2008. Methodology guideline on techno economic assessment (TEA).
ThermalNet WP3B Economics, 25–25.
Lehahn, Y., Ingle, K.N., Golberg, A., 2016. Global potential of offshore and shallow waters
macroalgal biorefineries to provide for food, chemicals and energy: Feasibility and
sustainability. Algal Res. 17, 150–160.
Lemire, P.O., Delcroix, B., Audy, J.F., Labelle, F., Mangin, P., Barnabé, S., 2019. GIS
method to design and assess the transportation performance of a decentralized
biorefinery supply system and comparison with a centralized system: case study in
southern Quebec, Canada. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 13 (3), 552–567.
Leu, S., Boussiba, S., 2014. Advances in the production of high-value products by mi-
croalgae. Ind. Biotechnol. 10 (3), 169–183.
Li, S.Y., Ng, I.S., Chen, P.T., Chiang, C.J., Chao, Y.P., 2018. Biorefining of protein waste
for production of sustainable fuels and chemicals. Biotechnol. Biofuels 11 (1), 1–15.
Liew, W.H., Hassim, M.H., Ng, D.K.S., 2014. Review of evolution, technology and sus-
tainability assessments of biofuel production. J. Cleaner Prod. 71, 11–29.
Liguori, R., Faraco, V., 2016. Biological processes for advancing lignocellulosic waste
biorefinery by advocating circular economy. Bioresour. Technol. 215, 13–20.
Liu, Z.H., Le, R.K., Kosa, M., Yang, B., Yuan, J., Ragauskas, A.J., 2019. Identifying and
creating pathways to improve biological lignin valorization. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 105, 349–362.
López Barreiro, D., Samorì, C., Terranella, G., Hornung, U., Kruse, A., Prins, W., 2014.
Assessing microalgae biorefinery routes for the production of biofuels via hydro-
thermal liquefaction. Bioresour. Technol. 174, 256–265.
Lotti, T., Carretti, E., Berti, D., Martina, M.R., Lubello, C., Malpei, F., 2019. Extraction,
recovery and characterization of structural extracellular polymeric substances from
anammox granular sludge. J. Environ. Manage. 236, 649–656.
Lucarini, M., Durazzo, A., Romani, A., Campo, M., Lombardi-Boccia, G., Cecchini, F.,
2018. Bio-Based compounds from grape seeds: a biorefinery approach. Molecules
(Basel, Switzerland) 23 (8), 1–12.
Luo, L., van der Voet, E., Huppes, G., 2010. Biorefining of lignocellulosic feedstock –
Technical, economic and environmental considerations. Bioresour. Technol. 101
(13), 5023–5032.
Ma, J., Shi, S., Jia, X., Xia, F., Ma, H., Gao, J., Xu, J., 2019. Advances in catalytic con-
version of lignocellulose to chemicals and liquid fuels. J. Energy Chem. 36, 74–86.
Ma, Y., Hummel, M., Kontro, I., Sixta, H., 2018. High performance man-made cellulosic
fibres from recycled newsprint. Green Chem. 20 (1), 160–169.
Maina, S., Kachrimanidou, V., Koutinas, A., 2017. A roadmap towards a circular and
sustainable bioeconomy through waste valorization. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain.
Chem. 8, 18–23.
Manara, P., Zabaniotou, A., 2016. Co-valorization of crude glycerol waste streams with
conventional and/or renewable fuels for power generation and industrial symbiosis
perspectives. Waste Biomass Valorization 7 (1), 135–150.
Mandegari, M.A., Farzad, S., Görgens, J.F., 2017. Recent trends on techno-economic as-
sessment (TEA) of sugarcane biorefineries. Biofuel Res. J. 4 (3), 704–712.
Martínez, O., Sánchez, A., Font, X., Barrena, R., 2018. Enhancing the bioproduction of
value-added aroma compounds via solid-state fermentation of sugarcane bagasse and
sugar beet molasses: operational strategies and scaling-up of the process. Bioresour.
Technol. 263 (April), 136–144.
Minelgaitė, A., Liobikienė, G., 2019. Waste problem in European Union and its influence
on waste management behaviours. Sci. Total Environ. 667, 86–93.
Mohan, S.V., Butti, S.K., Amulya, K., Dahiya, S., Modestra, J.A., 2016. Waste biorefinery:
a new paradigm for a sustainable bioelectro economy. Trends Biotechnol. 34 (11),
852–855.
Montafia, P., Gnansounou, E., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of Thermochemical
Conversion of Empty Fruit Bunch of Oil Palm to Bio-Methane. Elsevier B.V.
Morf, L.S., Gloor, R., Haag, O., Haupt, M., Skutan, S., Lorenzo, F.D., Böni, D., 2013.
Precious metals and rare earth elements in municipal solid waste – Sources and fate
in a Swiss incineration plant. Waste Manage. 33 (3), 634–644.
Navarro, M.V., López, J.M., Veses, A., Callén, M.S., García, T., 2018. Kinetic study for the
co-pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass and plastics using the distributed activation
energy model. Energy 165, 731–742.
Ness, D., 2008. Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: towards a Factor 10 im-
provement in resource productivity through integrated infrastructure systems. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 15 (4), 288–301.
Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., Waqas, M., Naqvi, M., Ouda, O.K.M., Shahzad, K., Miandad, R.,
Khan, M.Z., Syamsiro, M., Ismail, I.M.I., Pant, D., 2017. Waste biorefineries: enabling
circular economies in developing countries. Bioresour. Technol. 241, 1101–1117.
Osman, M.M.M., Shao, X., Zhao, D., Basheer, A.K., Jin, H., Zhang, Y., 2019. Methane
production from alginate-extracted and non-extracted waste of Laminaria japonica:
anaerobic mono- and synergetic co-digestion effects on yield. Sustainability
(Switzerland) 11 (5), 4–8.
A.T. Ubando, et al.
Özdenkçi, K., De Blasio, C., Muddassar, H.R., Melin, K., Oinas, P., Koskinen, J., Sarwar,
G., Järvinen, M., 2017. A novel biorefinery integration concept for lignocellulosic
biomass. Energy Convers. Manage. 149, 974–987.
Pant, D., Misra, S., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., van Leeuwen, R., Tabacchioni, S., Goel, R.,
Sarma, P., Bakker, R., Sharma, N., Kwant, K., Diels, L., Elst, K., 2019. Towards the
development of a biobased economy in Europe and India. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 39
(6), 779–799.
Pearce, D.W., Ker, R., 1991. Economics of natural resources and the environment. Land
Econ. 67 (2), 272–276.
Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., 2016. Constructing bibliometric
networks: a comparison between full and fractional counting. J. Informetr. 10 (4),
1178–1195.
Quinn, L., Gray, S.G., Meaney, S., Finn, S., Kenny, O., Hayes, M., 2017. Sinapinic and
protocatechuic acids found in rapeseed: isolation, characterisation and potential
benefits for human health as functional food ingredients. Irish J. Agric. Food Res. 56
(1), 104–119.
Rakotovao, M., Gobert, J., Brullot, S. 2018. Developing a socio-economic framework for
the assessment of rural biorefinery projects. European Biomass Conference and
Exhibition Proceedings, 2018(26thEUBCE), 1378-1389.
Raman, J.K., Gnansounou, E., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of Vetiver-Based Biorefinery
With Production of Bioethanol and Furfural. Elsevier B.V.
Rana, S., Mishra, P., Wahid, Z., Thakur, S., Pant, D., Singh, L., 2019. ScienceDirect
Microbe-mediated sustainable bio-recovery of gold from low-grade precious solid
wastea: a microbiological overview. J. Environ. Sci. 1–18.
Rivas, S., Vila, C., Alonso, J.L., Santos, V., Parajó, J.C., Leahy, J.J., 2019. Biorefinery
processes for the valorization of Miscanthus polysaccharides: from constituent sugars
to platform chemicals. Ind. Crops Prod. 134 (April), 309–317.
Sadhukhan, J., Martinez-Hernandez, E., 2017. Material flow and sustainability analyses of
biorefining of municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 243, 135–146.
Sadhukhan, J., Martinez-Hernandez, E., Murphy, R.J., Ng, D.K.S., Hassim, M.H., Siew Ng,
K., Yoke Kin, W., Jaye, I.F.M., Leung Pah Hang, M.Y., Andiappan, V., 2018. Role of
bioenergy, biorefinery and bioeconomy in sustainable development: strategic path-
ways for Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 1966–1987.
Sadhukhan, J., Ng, K.S., Martinez-Hernandez, E., 2016. Novel integrated mechanical
biological chemical treatment (MBCT) systems for the production of levulinic acid
from fraction of municipal solid waste: a comprehensive techno-economic analysis.
Bioresour. Technol. 215, 131–143.
Sawatdeenarunat, C., Nam, H., Adhikari, S., Sung, S., Khanal, S.K., 2018. Decentralized
biorefinery for lignocellulosic biomass: Integrating anaerobic digestion with ther-
mochemical conversion. Bioresour. Technol. 250, 140–147.
Schebek, L., Mrani, O. 2014. Environmental and sustainability assessment of bior-
efineries. Advances in Biorefineries: Biomass and Waste Supply Chain Exploitation,
pp. 67–88.
Seghetta, M., Hou, X., Bastianoni, S., Bjerre, A.B., Thomsen, M., 2016. Life cycle assess-
ment of macroalgal biorefinery for the production of ethanol, proteins and fertilizers
– A step towards a regenerative bioeconomy. J. Cleaner Prod. 137, 1158–1169.
Serrano, A., Fermoso, F.G., Alonso-Fariñas, B., Rodríguez-Gutierrez, G., Fernandez-
Bolaños, J., Borja, R., 2017. Olive mill solid waste biorefinery: high-temperature
thermal pre-treatment for phenol recovery and biomethanization. J. Cleaner Prod.
148, 314–323.
Shemfe, M., Gadkari, S., Yu, E., Rasul, S., Scott, K., Head, I.M., Gu, S., Sadhukhan, J.,
2018. Life cycle, techno-economic and dynamic simulation assessment of bioelec-
trochemical systems: a case of formic acid synthesis. Bioresour. Technol. 255, 39–49.
Shen, R., Tao, L., Yang, B., 2019. Techno-economic analysis of jet-fuel production from
biorefinery waste lignin. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 13 (3), 486–501.
Shin, S.K., Ko, Y.J., Hyeon, J.E., Han, S.O., 2019. Studies of advanced lignin valorization
based on various types of lignolytic enzymes and microbes. Bioresour. Technol.
18
Bioresource Technology 299 (2020) 122585
121728.
Singh, A., Rodríguez Jasso, R.M., Gonzalez-Gloria, K.D., Rosales, M., Cerda, R.B., Aguilar,
C.N., Singhania, R.R., Ruiz, H.A., 2019. The enzyme biorefinery platform for ad-
vanced biofuels production. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 7 (June), 100257.
Skaggs, R.L., Coleman, A.M., Seiple, T.E., Milbrandt, A.R., 2018. Waste-to-energy biofuel
production potential for selected feedstocks in the conterminous United States.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2640–2651.
Solarte-Toro, J.C., Chacón-Pérez, Y., Cardona-Alzate, C.A., 2018. Evaluation of biogas
and syngas as energy vectors for heat and power generation using lignocellulosic
biomass as raw material. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 33, 52–62.
Sosa-Hernández, J.E., Romero-Castillo, K.D., Parra-Arroyo, L., Aguilar-Aguila-Isaías,
M.A., García-Reyes, I.E., Ahmed, I., Parra-Saldivar, R., Bilal, M., Iqbal, H.M.N., 2019.
Mexican microalgae biodiversity and state-of-the-art extraction strategies to meet
sustainable circular economy challenges: high-value compounds and their applied
perspectives. Mar. Drugs 17 (3).
Tedesco, S., Stokes, J., 2017. Valorisation to biogas of macroalgal waste streams: a cir-
cular approach to bioproducts and bioenergy in Ireland. Chem. Pap. 71 (4), 721–728.
Temmes, A., Peck, P., 2019. Do forest biorefineries fit with working principles of a cir-
cular bioeconomy? A case of Finnish and Swedish initiatives. For. Policy Econ.
101896.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2012. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and
business rationale for accelerated transition. pp. 1530–9290.
Torres, M.D., Kraan, S., Domínguez, H. 2019. Seaweed biorefinery.
Tuazon, D., Corder, G., McLellan, B., 2013. Sustainable development: a review of theo-
retical contributions. Int. J. Sustain. Future Hum. Security 1 (1), 40–48.
Tuazon, D., Gnansounou, E., 2017. Towards an Integrated Sustainability Assessment of
Biorefineries. Elsevier B.V.
Ubando, A.T., Cuello, J.L., El-Halwagi, M.M., Culaba, A.B., Promentilla, M.A.B., Tan,
R.R., 2016. Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process for evaluating algal
cultivation systems for sustainable biofuel production. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
18 (5), 1281–1294.
Uggetti, E., García, J., Álvarez, J.A., García-Galán, M.J., 2018. Start-up of a microalgae-
based treatment system within the biorefinery concept: from wastewater to biopro-
ducts. Water Sci. Technol. 78 (1), 114–124.
Vaskan, P., Pachón, E.R., Gnansounou, E. 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of Sugar Crops and
Starch-Based Integrated Biorefineries.
Venkata Mohan, S., 2014. Reorienting Waste Remediation Towards Harnessing
Bioenergy: A Paradigm Shift. Elsevier Ltd.
Vlysidis, A., Binns, M., Webb, C., Theodoropoulos, C., 2011. A techno-economic analysis
of biodiesel biorefineries: assessment of integrated designs for the co-production of
fuels and chemicals. Energy 36 (8), 4671–4683.
Walmsley, T.G., Varbanov, P.S., Su, R., Ong, B., Lal, N., 2018. Frontiers in process de-
velopment, integration and intensification for circular life cycles and reduced emis-
sions. J. Clean. Prod. 201, 178–191.
Wild, K.J., Trautmann, A., Katzenmeyer, M., Steingaß, H., Posten, C., Rodehutscord, M.,
2019. Chemical composition and nutritional characteristics for ruminants of the
microalgae Chlorella vulgaris obtained using different cultivation conditions. Algal
Res. 38, 101385.
Zabaniotou, A., Kamaterou, P., 2019. Food waste valorization advocating Circular
Bioeconomy – A critical review of potentialities and perspectives of spent coffee
grounds biorefinery. J. Cleaner Prod. 211, 1553–1566.
Zhang, Y.H.P., 2008. Reviving the carbohydrate economy via multi-product lig-
nocellulose biorefineries. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35 (5), 367–375.
Zuin, V.G., Ramin, L.Z., 2018. Green and sustainable separation of natural products from
agro-industrial waste: challenges, potentialities, and perspectives on emerging ap-
proaches. Top. Curr. Chem. 376 (1), 1–54.