Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Production of solid biofuels from organic waste in developing countries:

A review from sustainability and economic feasibility perspectives
Lina S. Angulo-Mosquera a,⁎, Allan A. Alvarado-Alvarado a, María J. Rivas-Arrieta a, Carlos R. Cattaneo a,
Eldon R. Rene a, Octavio García-Depraect b
a
Department of Water Supply, Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, 2611AX Delft, the Netherlands
b
Institute of Sustainable Processes, University of Valladolid, Dr Mergelina, s/n, 47011 Valladolid, Spain

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

• Properties of solid biofuels (SB) make

them competitive with conventional
fuels.
• Pretreatment and handling of feed-
stock have a higher impact on SB
feasibility.
• Could yield very low GHG emissions,
heightening sustainability in develop-
ing countries.
• State-interventions may be required
for solid biofuels to access the fuels
market.
• Solid biofuels from biowaste are
essential to circularity for developing
countries.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The current increase in the world population and its energy demand promotes the study and implementa-
Received 22 February 2021 tion of cleaner energy forms since the traditional energy recovery systems are seriously affecting the
Received in revised form 27 June 2021 environment. Biofuels and especially biomass or solid biofuels represent a sustainable energy source for
Accepted 29 June 2021
developed and developing countries. This review aims to discuss the characteristics and advantages of
Available online 30 June 2021
solid biofuels, analyse the pretreatments and thermal treatments required to recover energy, and compare
Editor: Iris KM Yu them with traditional fossil fuels. Other areas such as the sustainability and economic feasibility of solid
biofuels are likewise addressed by explaining frequently used tools to evaluate the environmental impact
as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Comparatively, more recent methodologies are examined as efforts for
Keywords: accomplishing sustainability in the biofuel industry, namely Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)
Solid biofuels and certification schemes like the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB), the Inter-American
Circular economy Development Bank Sustainability Scorecard, and initiatives like the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil
Organic waste (RSPO). Finally, it was revealed that the economic feasibility and competitiveness of solid biofuels differ
Market feasibility
among developing countries but represent a notable contribution to their energy matrix.
Sustainability
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lan001@un-ihe.org, lina.angulo.mosquera@correounivalle.edu.co (L.S. Angulo-Mosquera).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148816
0048-9697/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al. Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816

List of abbreviations and units study determined that for 13 Sub-Saharan African countries, the use of
Abbreviations fossil fuels has a positive correlation with economic growth and the de-
1G First-generation fuels terioration of environmental quality evidenced by increasing CO2 emis-
4G Fourth-generation fuels sions (Asongu et al., 2020). Other researchers found that the CO2
EIA Energy Information Administration of the US emissions in Xi'an, China, are mainly the product of locally burned
GHG Greenhouse gas coal, and a reduction of approximately 36% of the released CO2 was
HHV Higher heating value achieved by implementing a carbon reduction strategy (W. Zhou et al.,
HTC Hydrothermal carbonization 2020). Indeed, the need to reduce fossil-derived fuels is a global con-
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cern, in which governments and industry have joined efforts and
IEA International Energy Agency made green deals intending for reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
IRR Internal return rate The concept of unburnable fuels has emerged as another way to ad-
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature dress the reduction in fossil fuels use. It has been estimated (regarding
LCA Life cycle assessment solid fossil fuels) that 80% of the global coal reserves should be left un-
LCSA Life cycle sustainability assessment touched to fulfil one of the main goals of the Paris Agreement of main-
LPG Liquified petroleum gas taining the global temperature rise below 2 °C (Pellegrini et al., 2021).
MSW Municipal solid waste It is considered that restricting the international supply of fossil fuels
NRDC Natural Resources Defence Council is a crucial measure to reduce fossil fuel use; to achieve this goal, geopo-
OFMSW Organic fraction of municipal solid waste litical considerations are of major concern given the external depen-
RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials dency to achieve energy security for some nations (Rayner, 2020),
RSPO Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil being industrialised nations such as the United States at the head of
WWF World Wildlife Fund the list (Londoño-Pulgarin et al., 2021). Nevertheless, deliberately re-
ducing access to fossil fuel reserves may entail overvaluing the available
Units amounts and lead to exploiting back the reserves. Some authors like
kg of CO2-eq/MJ Londoño-Pulgarin et al. (2021) suggest that “environmental legislation
Kilogram of CO2 equivalent per Megajoules and ecological culture will be fundamental to stimulate consumption
kg/day Kilogram per day of renewable energies, beyond economic rationality”, as environmental
kg/m3 Kilogram per cubic meter awareness continues to be triggered, especially in the new generations,
kt/year Kiloton per year it is expected that more subsidies will be implemented. In Europe, since
Mha Mega hectare the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive in 2009
mol H+ eq/MJ (Schöpe, 2008) and the Biomass Action Plan in 2005 (European Parlia-
Mol of ion hydrogen equivalent per Megajoules ment and the Council, 2005), most countries have managed to reduce
Mt Megaton GHG emissions through the implementation of sustainable and more
Mt/year Megaton per year environmentally attractive renewable energy-recovering methods.
MJ/kg Megajoules per kilogram Even though there is still space for improvement in the transport sector
MJ/MJ Megajoules per Megajoules (Darda et al., 2019), the current trend worldwide in developed coun-
tons/year Tone per year tries is switching from using fossil fuels to produce and use more sus-
PJ Petajoule tainable fuels such as first-generation (1G) to fourth generation (4G)
PJ/year Petajoule per year biofuels, encouraging their use by enforcing policies and offering incen-
P-eq/MJ Phosphorus equivalent per Megajoules tives or subsidies. The Canadian government, for instance, implemented
PM2.5-eq/MJ Particulate matter less than 2.5 equivalent per a subsidies policy to promote biodiesel production, supporting another
Megajoules policy to reduce GHG emissions. Meanwhile, in Latin America, Brazil is
US$/GJ US dollar per Gigajoule leading bioethanol and biodiesel production thanks to its large land
US$/J US dollar per Joule availability, adopting policies to promote renewable energy and effi-
US$/ton US dollar per ton cient use (Ebadian et al., 2020; Ogunkunle and Ahmed, 2019). There-
€/Mg Euro per Megagram or metric ton fore, institutional mechanisms promoting alternative energy sources
such as incentives and subventions should be enforced.
Nowadays, several alternatives exist as renewable options for en-
ergy recovery. Solid biofuels (also called biomass) stand out among
1. Introduction them because their life cycle can be carbon neutral (Zhao et al.,
2014a), and their production also addresses waste management,
The increasing population in the world mostly accounted for devel- when the feedstock used is classified as a waste, providing them with
oping countries (United Nations, 2019), summed up with the spread of an added value (Gutiérrez Ortiz et al., 2019). Thus, solid biofuels help
available technologies is causing (and will continue influencing) an in- to contribute to the ambitious effort to create sustainable low carbon
crease in the energy demand (Darda et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020b; cities in the future, as established in the Paris Agreement. To illustrate
Voca and Ribic, 2020). Estimations of the Energy Information Adminis- this aspect, solid biofuels contribution to global warming is ten times
tration of the United States (EIA) indicate that by 2050 the global energy lower than the use of hard coal in terms of kg of CO2-eq generated per
demand will increase by 50%, standing at nearly 900 quadrillions Btu, in MJ of energy produced (Wolf et al., 2016).
which emerging countries will account for most of the electricity de- Biomass as a solid biofuel can be wood, wood chips, agricultural res-
mand growth (EIA, 2020a, 2020b). It is imperative to fulfil the growing idues, plant and algae material, and the organic fraction of municipal
energy requirements to meet the expected future global energy de- solid waste (OFMSW). These raw materials offer the advantage of
mand in this regard. However, at the same time, our society is currently (i) being renewable and (ii) disposing of the waste rather than mainly
facing the need to eliminate its dependency on fossil fuels since there relying on fossil fuels. Bioenergy in developing countries has been tradi-
are recognised concerns regarding environmental and human health is- tionally used in cooking and heating applications, accounting for 6.7% of
sues triggered by their excessive use, such as atmospheric pollution, re- the global primary energy supply, around 33 EJ. However, another part
spiratory disorders, and climate change driven by the release of of the biomass contribution to the primary energy supply (3.3%) is
greenhouse gases (GHG) (Soeder and Borglum, 2020). For instance, a treated towards a higher conversion efficiency and higher heating

2
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
values products (Lamers et al., 2012). After a thermal or densification
process, biomass conversion products (upgraded solid biofuels) range
from biochar, hydrochar, briquettes to pellets, which often offer en-
hanced energetic properties compared to raw biomass, for instance, a
higher calorific value, less moisture content, and a more stable nature
(Sajdak et al., 2019). Besides, compared to raw biomass (e.g., wood
chips, bark, or nut shells), upgraded solid biofuels are easier and cheaper
to transport and store (Malico et al., 2019). The energy from solid
biofuels (bioenergy) can be recovered using numerous thermochemical
processes, which depends on the feedstock material, availability and
quantity, the form of energy that will be salvaged, the desired end prod-
uct, and economic limitations (Bonassa et al., 2018). Processes such as
hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) (Rather et al., 2017; Sharma et al.,
2020a; Venna et al., 2020), pyrolysis (Lubwama and Yiga, 2018;
Nuagah et al., 2020; Nudri et al., 2020), torrefaction (Sukiran et al.,
2017), briquetting (Sawadogo et al., 2018) and pelletizing (Sharma
and Dubey, 2020) have recently been under research in developing
countries for biomass conversion into solid biofuels and its usage. How-
ever, the topic is relatively new and “there is still a shortage of evidence-
based studies that investigates bio-energys potential as a sustainable
energy alternative” (Sharma et al., 2020b).
Thus, this review aims to provide the current trends of solid biofuels
production and their use in developing countries within a
(i) sustainability and (ii) economic feasibility framework. This review
provides an overview of the current situation of solid biofuels, exempli-
fying conditions that lead to the successful development of solid
biofuels production in developing countries like Brazil and examining
potential actions that can drive its evolution in other countries with a
high biomass generation yield, such as biowaste, sewage sludge and
crop residues. Thus, contributing to endorse and promote sustainable
regional development and energy security.
2. Solid waste in developing countries: a unique opportunity for
renewable and sustainable energy recovery
The socio-economic conditions of developing countries rely primar-
ily on agriculture, and in recent years have increasingly grown to meet
the demand for food because of the increase in population. Conse-
quently, the generation of agriculture waste (animal manure, crop resi-
dues, rest of animals, residual agricultural chemicals, among others) is
considerably high (Azasi et al., 2020). For instance, China annually gen-
erates 500 to 800 Mt of agriculture waste (C. Zhou et al., 2020), India
500 Mt (Ramesh et al., 2021), Turkey 65 Mt (Yilmaz et al., 2018) and
Mexico 76.7 Mt (Tauro et al., 2018b); Azasi et al. (2020) projected
that in Ghana, 10.33 Mt/year of crop residues are generated, while
Bonassa et al. (2018) 298 Mt/year in Brazil.
Only a minor part of the agriculture residues is reused immediately
in the system (as compost or manure, for instance); the remaining
amount is usually burnt on the field or inappropriately disposed of
(Azasi et al., 2020; Mendoza Martinez et al., 2019; Santos Santana
et al., 2020). Burning agricultural residues not only signifies losing a po-
tential energy source but also leads to soil erosion problems, fertility
loss, excessive emission of particulate matter, NH3, SO2, GHG (NO2,
CO2, and CO), VOCs, SVOCs, and ozone formation (Dey et al., 2020). Re-
garding the energy potential of agricultural residues, Tauro et al.
(2018b) reported that the capacity of Mexico for solid biofuel produc-
tion accounts for 473 and 589 PJ/year (PJ = 109 MJ), though it may
broadly fluctuate depending on the “world grain market fluctuations;
biophysical limitations; sustainability considerations; competing uses
of residues; distance to processing plants and inefficient transportation;
and lack of incentives for producers to harvest residues”. Indeed, such
factors may also affect the energy potential from agricultural waste in
other developing countries.
Likewise, the current lifestyle, framed in an economic model and an
accelerated technological and industrial development, has caused an in-
crement in the volumes of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated.
3
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
However, MSW management in developing countries at present con-
sists of non-waste separation, inadequate transport, handling, and dis-
posal (systems of sanitary landfill or integral plants of treatment of
solid waste or in dumps at open-air, fires, water bodies, and burials)
mainly in urban poor and rural areas (Olay-Romero et al., 2020; Parra-
Orobio et al., 2018). These issues have resulted in a negative impact
on the environment and human health, such as GHG emissions, global
warming, secondary water pollution (infiltration of leachate into the
groundwater), infections, and chronic diseases (e.g., Hepatitis B and
cancers, respectively), emission of harmful substances, among others
(Azevedo et al., 2019; Parra-Orobio et al., 2018; Vasanthi et al., 2008;
F. Wang et al., 2018; T. Wang et al., 2018; Ziraba et al., 2016). Conse-
quently, the stakeholders nowadays are looking for novel, holistic, feasi-
ble and practical solutions to achieve efficient MSW management.
According to Kaza et al. (2018), in Latin America and the Caribbean
and East Asia and the Pacific regions, the total MSW generated accounts
for 231 and 468 million tons/year with an average per capita production
of 0.99 and 0.52 kg/day, respectively. By 2050, these regions would in-
crease approximately 60% in their MSW generation (Kaza et al., 2018).
It is relevant to highlight that, for these regions, around 53% of the
MSW are food and green waste, 12% plastics, and 14% paper and card-
board waste; which are combustible materials (e.g., Indian MSW show
higher heating value (HHV) of 15.7 MJ/kg) and has a constant, inevita-
ble, and expected production (Kaza et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2020b;
Zhao et al., 2014a). These characteristics are relevant for the success of
waste to bioenergy conversion systems, guaranteeing the implementa-
tion, continuity, and future project feasibility in developing countries
where the economic resources are limited. MSW has an enormous en-
ergy potential that has been proved successfully through different
mechanisms (e.g., anaerobic digestion, thermochemical process, and
pyrolysis) in developed countries. Thus, it should be adapted to the
socio-economic conditions of each developing country (Bonassa et al.,
2018; Nanda and Berruti, 2021). Moreover, different economic and po-
litical actions should first strive to re-design MSW management into a
more circular, sustainable, and cost-effective alternative for each sce-
nario. In this line, several waste-to-energy technologies qualify as eco-
nomical and sustainable solutions for developing countries, including
the adaptation to solid biofuel (Azevedo et al., 2019; Nanda and
Berruti, 2021).
Sewage sludge management also represents a severe economic and
environmental problem in developing countries (Zhao et al., 2014b).
For instance, Egypt has a sludge production of 0.48 kg/m3 of treated
wastewater, which nearly 85% is sold to local merchants, without a
proper stabilisation process, to be used as fertilizer on farming of fruits
and vegetables; reflecting the lack of investment on suitable technolo-
gies and watchfulness of national regulations (Abdel Wahaab et al.,
2020). In developing countries (e.g., Ghana and Colombia) is common
that untreated sludge is disposed of in soils or water bodies,
representing an adverse impact on the environment and climate
change, due to, for example, its heavy metal content and GHG potential
emissions (Ferrans et al., 2020; Nuagah et al., 2020), which accounted
for approx. 40% of total wastewater treatment plant emissions (B. Liu
et al., 2013). As an example, Mexico produced 640 kt/year of sludge, of
which 76% are disposed of on open-air dumps (mostly without treat-
ment), contributing to 7% of total CO2 emissions in this country (Rojas
and Mendoza, 2012). In this regard, the world crisis of fossil fuel sources
and the high CO2 emissions from these fuels (35.5 Gt in 2014)
(Brutschin and Fleig, 2016) has spurred interest in the exploitation of
biomass, including energy crops and waste, as a more sustainable en-
ergy source due to its high energy potential and renewable nature
(Afra et al., 2021; Mendoza Martinez et al., 2019; Yilmaz et al., 2018).
Thus, it is necessary to encourage the use of renewable biofuels, which
could guarantee a greater performance without adverse effects on
human health and the environment (Kongprasert et al., 2019;
Kshirsagar et al., 2012; Lubwama and Yiga, 2018; Sawadogo et al.,
2018).
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
It is indeed expected that biomass will be the most important re-
newable energy source in the coming decades, reaching interest levels
to the already consolidated solar, geothermal, and wind energy (Lim
et al., 2012). One of the main advantages of biomass is that it could be
used directly to generate energy (a primary energy source like fuel-
wood) or processed into secondary products (a secondary energy
source like charcoal). Both primary and secondary biomass-derived en-
ergy sources could be employed on a local level (e.g., anaerobic diges-
tion and briquetting) or offsite (e.g., pyrolysis) when the biomass
requires more complex processing, which brings benefits for develop-
ing countries (Yilmaz et al., 2018). Additionally, the use of solid biofuels
such as briquetting represents a cost-effective and high energy-efficient
solution for rural communities, Indonesia, for example (Ifa et al., 2020).
Silva et al. (2021) reported that rice husk waste could represent around
5% of the total bioenergy production in Brazil (3.3 million MWh/year for
2.4 Mt/year) through the generation of electricity that is produced in the
form of rice husk briquettes. The utilisation of rice husk briquettes
would also prevent the emissions of 3.08 MtCO2/year by replacing
coal. Considering the well-known fact that rice is one of the important
and most commonly consumed agricultural products globally, its
proper management will offer not only environmental benefits but
also add value to the waste for energy recovery, making the product
more sustainable. In 2019, the rice production worldwide was 756 Mt/
year; however, evidently, it was produced majorly in developing coun-
tries such as China (56%) and India (24%) (FAO, 2021). Thus, with only
one type of waste, i.e., rice husk and the application of the best available
(eco-friendly) technology for briquettes production, it would be possi-
ble to contribute to 1% and 0.001% of the total energy requirements in
China and India, respectively (EIA, 2020a, 2020b). Thus, by extrapolat-
ing the information mentioned previously, it is possible to highlight
the unfeigned potential of solid waste as an excellent source of
bioenergy.
Several studies have demonstrated that households are the primary
consumers of solid biofuels, followed by industrial, commercial, and ag-
ricultural activities (FAO/GBEP, 2007; Gaigalis and Skema, 2016;
Lubwama and Yiga, 2018; Tauro et al., 2018b). Indeed, in developing
countries, solid biofuels represent mainly a new form of energy used
in household activities, such as heating and cooking. Sharma and
Dubey (2020) suggested that ideally, 11% of global electricity generated
by coal could be replaced by the combustion of hydrochar from yard and
food waste. That is due to the stable combustion profile and excellent
combustible properties of the yard and food waste hydrochar pellet
analysed (energy yield: 45% and fuel ratio: 0.65). Sawadogo et al.
(2018) found comparable results for cashew waste briquettes, where
the briquettes presented similar combustion performances than wood
charcoal, through a water boiling test (boiling duration: 47 vs 45 min,
firepower: 1.34 vs 1.5 kW, thermal efficiency: 33.9 vs 33.70% and spe-
cific fuel consumption: 131.09 vs 144.56 kJ/L/min), demonstrating
that solid biofuels are functional for domestic cooking and small and
medium companies. This aspect provides an alternative to biomass in
the form of firewood, charcoal, and crop residues, which together
accounted for up to 80% of the energy consumption in rural areas.
At this point, it should be highlighted that taking advantage of the
agriculture predominance in developing countries, the enormous quan-
tities of waste generated, and the necessity to integrate better manage-
ment methods; makes the conversion of biomass to solid biofuels an
attractive path to diminish the vast environmental impact of fossil
fuels, as proven in recent years. Solid biofuels have several advantages
over the solid non-renewable sources of energy commonly used,
i.e., charcoal, lignite, and firewood. Firstly, solid biofuels offer better
qualities, such as similar or greater HHV (wood: 18 MJ/kg, charcoal:
28 MJ/kg and lignite: 12.78 MJ/kg) (see Table 1). Secondly, solid bio-
mass is already achievable for its production because the economy in
developing countries is mainly based on agriculture, and besides that,
some solid biofuels require low energy expenses for their production.
Thirdly, in countries where firewood or similar are employed in massive
4
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
quantities, alternative energy sources allow decreased deforestation
rates and habitat disturbance. The sustainability of solid biofuels, how-
ever, depends on land-use changes associated with biomass production,
conversion technologies use, and often on methodological assumptions
(Bonassa et al., 2018; FAO/GBEP, 2007; Sharma et al., 2020b; Unal et al.,
2017; Berazneva et al., 2021).
3. Solid biofuels production
Currently, the production of solid biofuels worldwide is based on a
circular economy concept that encourages the use of waste (or low-
value materials) as primary sources, reducing the impact on the envi-
ronment and benefiting the economy, as is represented in Fig. 1
(Morseletto, 2020; Sharma et al., 2020a). Even though solid biofuels
production brings indisputable benefits, as previously stated, some in-
herent challenges are also raised by researchers (see Fig. 1). For in-
stance, the lack of government policies or subventions to initiate and
maintain a demand for solid biofuels is hampering the development
and widespread use of solid biofuels (Venkatesh, 2014). Other com-
monly cited issues are related to the composition of the derived biofuels
(which depends on the raw biomass) because of the associated emis-
sions produced when combusting. To illustrate this, Theppitak et al.
(2020) compared HTC and pyrolysis to produce solid biofuel from
food waste and concluded that as HTC can remove nitrogen from the
biomass matrix, the derived biofuel may emit less NOX.
As Table 1 exemplifies, the selection of feedstock and technology
used for producing solid biofuels depends on several factors such as
the economy and agricultural conditions and activity, energy required,
and the complexity of the technology itself. Commonly, lignocellulosic
chemicals, particularly agricultural biomass, are the most used feed-
stocks for solid biofuels thanks to their easy and proper management,
wide accessibility, and great potential as a biofuel (Bonassa et al.,
2018). Furthermore, waste such as sewage sludge, food waste or
MSW, has been used as a single raw material or in a mixture (allowing
to manage more waste in quantity and variety), showing products with
acceptable performance; for instance, with excellent reactivity and
combustion behaviours (Chen et al., 2009; Marrugo et al., 2019; Wang
et al., 2020).
According to the latest research regarding solid biofuel production
based on waste and the technology used (Table 1), HTC is currently
the most used thermal technology for solid biofuels production with a
share of ~38% of the total studies, which is quite distant from other
solid biofuel production processes such as pyrolysis, torrefaction, and
gasification, accounting for 15%, 15%, and 3%, respectively. Briquetting
and pelletizing (physical processes) are the most used technologies,
20% and 9%, respectively, those are known for being economically feasi-
ble and straightforward technologies, therefore their relevance for use
in developing countries (El Haggar, 2005; Fajfrlíková et al., 2020).
The main product resulting from thermal technologies is biochar, or
hydrochar in the case of HTC. Biochar typically has a higher energy den-
sity than the raw biomass used for its production. Moreover, it has a
HHV similar to lignite (Z. Liu et al., 2013). For instance, Wyn et al.
(2020) found that biochar produced from lignocellulosic biomass via
pyrolysis and torrefaction can be up to 70% more energy-dense than
its parent material and obtained biochar with a HHV of up to 31.3 MJ/
kg. Having these properties, it is reasonable to assume that the produced
biochar can be used, for instance, in combustion applications. Briquettes
or pellets are products from biomass densification. As a result, they have
higher energy density (9 to 18 MJ/m3), low moisture, and lower emis-
sions. Marrugo et al. (2019) found a 600% and 350% increase in the en-
ergy density of risk husk and sugar cane bagasse after pelletizing,
respectively.
Solid waste is mainly characterised by low bulk density (about
20–40 kg/m3 for loose straw and 120–200 kg/m3 for wood sawdust),
softness and irregular shapes, high moisture (60% for palm oil empty
fruit bunches and up to 80% for sludges and MSW) and ashes content
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al. Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816

Table 1
Production of solid biofuels from different feedstock (solid waste) in developing countries compared with developed countries.

Country Feedstock Product/proximate Technology Scale/energy Total HHV, MJ/kg Reference

analysis, % yield, % cost

Developing countries
Brazil Peel of oranges (C. sinensis) Biochar Pyrolysis Lab – 16.70–19.30 (Santos et al., 2015)
b
FC: 14, cVM: 74, dA: 250, 350 and 450 °C
6
Brazil Defective coffee beans Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab – 20.20–29.10 (Santos Santana et al.,
FC: 8–45, VM: 78–93, 150, 200, 250 °C 46.0–61.0 2020)
A: 0.07–0.25
Brazil Rice husk Briquettes Briquetting (mix of yellow Lab – 16.59–17.26 (Magnago et al., 2020)
Orange pear peel A: 5 potatoes peel and distilled
Rice husk water as binder) 15.38–16.70
Ponkan mandarin peel 100 Pa, 1 min, drying at
Rice husk 105 °C – 48 h 15.92–17.16
Tahiti lemon peel
Brazil Coffee waste + pinewood Briquettes Briquetting (piston-press Lab – 18.92–20.71 (Mendoza Martinez
FC: 14.6, VM: 79.6, A: machine) et al., 2019)
2.6
Colombia Rice husk Pellets Pelletizing (50–70 °C and Pilot – 12.00–13.50 (Marrugo et al., 2019)
Sugar cane bagasse crude glycerol as binder) 12.50–13.50
Coffee husk 12.50–15.50
Colombia Primary sludge Coal boiler Pellets Pelletizing Pilot – 8.42–10.69 (Valdés et al., 2020)
ashes Wood waste of
pulp/paper mill
Turkey Rose-oil processing waste Pellets Pelletizing (water as a binder) Lab – 14.06–16.86 (Atay and Ekinci, 2020)
Pine bark, Coal powder FC: 14, VM: 74, A: 6
Iran Bagasse Pellets Pelletizing Lab – 19–29 (Afra et al., 2021)
FC: 13–33, VM: (nano-lignocellulosic binders)
43–68, A: 6–17
Ghana Sewage sludge (SS) Biochar (as crop Pyrolysis 300, 450 and 650 °C, Lab – – (Nuagah et al., 2020)
Faecal sludge (FS) fertilizer) 60 min 23.8–71.4
A (SS): 73–88 19.0–66.7
A (FS): 16–30
Uganda Coffee husks Briquettes Pyrolysis (190–450 °C) Lab (200 ml) – 13.60–23.00 (Lubwama and Yiga,
FC: 23–46, VM: Compression (cassava starch 2018)
21–37, A: 12–47 or clay as binders)
Rice husks Briquettes 9.50–16.00
FC: 22–37, VM:
12–23, A: 36–60
Burkina Faso Cashew press cakes Briquettes Slow pyrolysis (350 °C) Pilot – 25.70–21.60 (Sawadogo et al., 2018)
FC: 19.1, VM: 77.8, A: Briquetting (cassava starch 41.7
3.1 and water as binders)
Thailand “Madan” wood + coconut Briquettes Charcoal kiln (1000 °C) Pilot – 27.73–26.42 (Kongprasert et al.,
shell FC: 68–72, VM: Briquetting (cassava starch 22.0–37.5 2019)
11–20, A: 4 and water as binders)
India Pre-treated yard waste Hydrochar Microwave pre-treatment Lab (50 ml) – 21.30 (Sharma et al., 2020a)
FC: 25.9, VM: 53.9, A: (2200 W, 110–200 °C, 2 min) 85.1–80.5 23.31
20.1 Anaerobic digestion
Hydrothermal carbonization
180–200 °C, 6 h
India Macrophyte Potamogeton Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (700 ml) – 24.08–29.60 (Rather et al., 2017)
lucens A: 7.8–15.2 (240–320 °C) at high pressure 12.5–72.0
India Yard waste Pelletized hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (750 ml) – 21.64–27.64 (Sharma and Dubey,
Food waste FC: 32–41, VM: 220–260 °C, 60–240 min 13.6–59.8 2020)
55–63, A: 4 Hydraulic hand pellets press
India Landfill leachate Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (750 ml) – 30.2 (Venna et al., 2020)
Food waste FC: 35.3, VM: 60.7, A: (220 °C, 6 h, 20 MPa) 51.3
1.13
Landfill leachate Hydrochar Lab (750 ml) 22.8
Yard waste FC: 17.9, VM: 71, A: 33.0
9.1
Bangladesh Banana stalk Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (300 ml) – 18.5–18.7 (Islam et al., 2019)
FC: 16–44, VM: (180 °C, 1–3 h) 61.5–68.2
48–73, A: 6–10
Malaysia Oil palm trunk Bio-coal Pyrolysis (300–350 °C) Pilot (∅ = 0.12 m, – 19.60 (Nudri et al., 2020)
FC: 51.8, VM: 39.4, A: H = 0.85 m) 37.6
15.5
Malaysia Oil palm solid waste (Empty Torrefied solid Torrefaction (200–300 °C) Country – 17.00–29.00 (Sukiran et al., 2017)
fruit bunches, palm kernel overview
shell, mesocarp fibre, oil
palm frond, and
oil palm trunk)
Malaysia Spent coffee ground Biochar Slow pyrolysis (500 °C, 30 min, Lab (2.3 L) 41.6 $7.22/kg 31.41 (Lee et al., 2021)
FC: 82.3, VM: 12.28, 12 °C/min)
A: 2.2

(continued on next page)

5
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al. Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816

Table 1 (continued)

Country Feedstock Product/proximate Technology Scale/energy Total HHV, MJ/kg Reference

analysis, % yield, % cost

Malaysia Palm kernel shell Biochar (as crop Microwave vacuum pyrolysis Lab – – (Wan Mahari et al.,
fertilizer) (750 W, 35 min) 28.0 2020)
Indonesia Cashew nutshell waste Briquettes Pyrolysis (350 °C) Lab (7 L) US 29.49 (Ifa et al., 2020)
FC: 72.6, VM: 17.2, A: Briquetting (tapioca flour, 41.0 $481/ton
4.9 ethanol, and water as binder)
China Sewage sludge and phenolic Hydrochar Hydrothermal Lab (250 ml) – 19.11 (Wang et al., 2020)
wastewater (ratio ¼) FC: 57.5, VM: 12.28, co-carbonization (200 °C) 88.4
A: 45
China Cornstalk Hydrochar Microwave-assisted Lab (100 ml) – 22.82 (Kang et al., 2019)
FC: 9.8–18, VM: hydrothermal carbonization 80.5
74.3–81.3, A: 3.1–4.0 (122.7–257.3 °C)
China Food waste Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (500 ml) – 28.73–31.73 (F. Wang et al., 2018;
FC: 34.8–45.5, VM: (180–260 °C) 35.0–53.8 T. Wang et al., 2018)
48.1–56.1, A: 6.4–9.1
China Sweet potato waste Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (250 ml) – 21.16–26.93 (Chen et al., 2018)
FC: 19.6–46.8, VM: (180–300 °C, 0–120 min) 48.0–63.9
45.5–75.1, A: 5.4–7.8
UK, Spain, China Xylan extracted from beech Biochar Microwave-assisted pyrolysis Lab (10 ml) – 22.08–23.47 (Li et al., 2017)
wood FC: 57.5, VM: 12.28, 40.0–82.0
A: 45.0
General Firewood, agricultural Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Overview – 6.00–29.57 (Sharma et al., 2020b)
residues, MSW

Developed countries
Italy Olive trimmings Hydrochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (50 ml) – 19.80–26.10 (Volpe and Fiori, 2017)
FC: 15.4–30.3, VM: (120–250 °C) 48.0–97.1
66.3–81.0, A: 2.7–3.9
Olive pulp Hydrochar 55.9–94.1 – 21.70–26.60
FC: 21.5–31.6, VM:
63.1–75.4, A: 2.9–4.9
Ireland Compost Bio-waste granules Drum granulation process Pilot – 17.40 (Chen et al., 2019)
with silicate-based binders 90.4
Poland Digestate Briquettes and Briquetting – 21.56 18.30 (Czekała et al., 2018)
pellets €/Mga
Sawdust 75.98 18.25
€/Mga
Japan Dewatered activated sludge Briquettes Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (500 ml) – 19.77 (Zhao et al., 2014a)
FC: 2.06–7.42, VM: 200 °C, 30 min 96.9
57.4–74.5, A:
18.5–34.7
South Korea Cellulose, xylan, and lignin Biochar Hydrothermal carbonization Lab (1 l) – 23.00–26.00 (Kim et al., 2016)
FC: 9.5–55, VM: (150 and 280 °C)
28.9–89.3, A:
0.8–28.6.
USA Woodchips Woodchips Briquetting Pilot, commercial US$ 2.2 16.00 (Sahoo et al., 2019)
briquettes scale × 106
Torrefied-woodchips Torrefaction process US$ 3.1 21.20
briquettes × 106
Biochar Gasification US$ 2.9 32.30
× 106
a
€/Mg: Euros per Megagram or metric ton.
b
FC: fixed carbon.
c
VM: volatile matter.
d
A: Ash.

(up to 19.5% for rice husk), volatile matter, heterogeneity, and low cal-
orific values (Chen et al., 2019, 2009; Zhao et al., 2014a). However, to
enhance such properties, solid waste is commonly pretreated by size re-
duction, microwave pretreatment, or drying, to give some examples. As
a result, qualified products with more significant energy densification,
HHV, fuel ratio, organic matter solubilization, and less moisture content
are produced.
Feedstock drying is a well-known essential procedure for biofuel
production (e.g., densification). According to Mendoza Martinez et al.
(2019), feedstock water acts as a binder and lubricant; however, exces-
sive moisture could lead to explosions during briquettes processing be-
cause of steam formation. Then, moisture content around 8 to 15% is
recommended to guarantee “more stable, resistant and denser bri-
quettes”. Subsequently, solid waste must require a drying pretreatment
due to its high moisture content. In a developing countries context, this
signifies extra energy demands and costs (as stated before) that should
be considered in the design process. It would indicate if the feedstock
chose provides the greatest energy recovery (considering the energy
input) and feasibility within the assessed context.
For instance, Sahoo et al. (2019) associate woodchips moisture con-
tent as the most sensitive factor to establish the minimum selling price
of briquettes (16% of total cost) due to the external heat source require-
ment (0.0354 L of propane/kg of woodchips) to reduce woodchip mois-
ture from 36% to 10%. Nevertheless, the use of propane (and therefore
the selling price) in this case could be reduced by improving burning ef-
ficiencies. The same conclusion was detected by Sukiran et al. (2017)
when analysing the economic feasibility of torrefaction of palm oil
solid waste. They found out that when the moisture content increases
by 15%, the production cost increases by 1.4 times (37 €/ton). Hence,
for the torrefaction process, it is recommended to use wastes with initial
moisture content below 20%.
On the other hand, upcoming technologies such as HTC allows, for
example, feedstocks with high moisture content; in other words, the
HTC process saves energy costs by avoiding drying as a pretreatment

6
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
Fig. 1. Overview of solid biofuel production and applications.
of waste (Kang et al., 2019; Lubwama and Yiga, 2018; Sharma et al.,
2020b; Zhao et al., 2014a). Table 2 summarises the common pretreat-
ments employed in developing countries and their main
characteristics. Additionally, integrating the pretreatment process with
different technologies, such as microwave torrefaction (Ho et al.,
2018), microwave-assisted HTC (Kang et al., 2019), and microwave
vacuum pyrolysis (Wan Mahari et al., 2020); brings extra benefits to
the thermochemical process such as high selective heating, rapid and
homogenous heating, low processing time, energy input and capital
cost. Ho et al. (2018) compared conventional torrefaction with micro-
wave torrefaction for coffee grounds solid biofuel production. In
general, microwave torrefaction presented better performances than
7
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
traditional torrefaction regarding reaction time, HHV, energy and solid
yields. Besides, they probed that microwave torrefaction is an energy-
efficient process; having a greater upgrading energy index, for a 95%
solid yield, microwave torrefaction could achieve 43% of energy yield
per kWh supplied, compared to 10% of energy yield per kWh supplied
for conventional torrefaction.
Hence, the technology selected also has a significant impact on the
feasibility and efficiency of solid biofuel production; there should be a
balance between the fuel quality and energy efficiency desired and the
available infrastructure in each region. Besides, not all the techniques
available for solid biofuel production work perfectly for one type of
feedstock, e.g., rice husk and coffee waste are frequently evaluated in
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al. Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816

Table 2
Common pretreatments used to achieve enhanced solid biofuels (Beig et al., 2020; Christoforou and Fokaides, 2019; Kumari and Singh, 2018).

Technology Conditions Advantages Disadvantages Remarks Reference

Dewatering/drying Mechanical dewatering Reduce moisture
Oven (at 25–110 °C) Better handling of
Solar at ambient feedstock
temperature/greenhouse Improve solid biofuel yield
Waste heat (>24 h) Prevents degradation
Size reduction and Chipping (10–30 mm) Increase surface area
shredding Milling (0.2–2.0 mm) Reduce and uniform
Grinding particle size
Break up lignocelluloses
structure
Greater production
Better binding properties
and migration of
extractives to the surface
(for densification process)
Microwave Directly correlated with High homogeneousness
the nature of feedstock. Ideal for thermal processes
200–2200 W (as a pretreatment or
110–200 °C combine with the process)
2–5 min Reduce heat requirements
Energy efficient
Ease operation
a
PS: particle size.
b
Energy yield.
Energy-intensive Moisture reduction of 43% guarantees energy (Sahoo et al., 2019)
density up to 32.3 MJ/kg.
Low moisture content in feedstock (8 to 15%) (Mendoza Martinez
increase energy density by 700 MJ/m3. et al., 2019)
Increase ash content 80% EY for risk husk pellet with (<0.6 nm PSa). (Marrugo et al., 2019)
(up to 15%) 63–98% EYb (<2 mm PS) for olive trimmings (Volpe and Fiori, 2017)
Energy-intensive hydrochar.
Organic matter 2 times higher ash content, but 10.9–19.3 MJ/kg (Santos et al., 2015)
solubilization (<0.074 mm PS).
Disintegration
Scalability Increased fixed carbon and decreased volatile (Sharma et al., 2020a)
Can release more matter content in hydrochar (fuel quality).
volatile compounds Microwave torrefaction shown significant (Ho et al., 2018)
(less HHV, EY and advantages over conventional torrefaction for its
fixed carbon) shorter duration (2.5 vs 15 min) and higher
Lower crystallinity. energy efficiency (95% vs 93%).

the literature (Table 1) through different technologies and exposes dif-
ferent fuel characteristics.
However, it is well-known that proper technology implementation
in developing countries could be a limitation. It may be due to high en-
ergy costs and energy requirements, socio-economic problems, cost,
and feedstock transportation. Indeed, efficient handling and transporta-
tion of biomass feedstock remain a challenge due to its large volume,
low density, and high demand for workforce and material and financial
resources. The feedstock collection represents a significant bottleneck
for densified solid biofuel production in developing countries such as
China (Zhou et al., 2016). Likewise, the lack of trained personnel to op-
erate complex systems such as HTC and pyrolysis can hamper a project.
Therefore, the integration of the directly affected community should be
included as a priority during design and execution (e.g., training, pur-
chase of solid waste, employment, among others) (Ullah et al., 2021).
4. Sustainability of solid biofuels
Production and use of biofuels for electricity and heat generation
present a growing trend in several countries. Since countries are looking
to diversify their energy mix to achieve a more sustainable development
that assures economic growth, energy security, and less environmental
impacts, solid sustainable biofuels can provide the benefits mentioned
above and others, like increasing household income in rural areas
(Silva-Martínez et al., 2020). However, biofuels might also drive biodi-
versity loss, deforestation, additional pressure on water resources, and
increased demand for agricultural inputs, land, and commodities.
Thus, the assessment of the benefits and challenges of solid biofuels pro-
duction and application should reflect the local and regional context to
determine whether they can be a more sustainable energy source than
fossil fuels (FAO, 2017; Rodríguez-Monroy et al., 2018). In other words,
the output of the global assessment must demonstrate that the use of
biomass-derived solid biofuels may enhance the quality of life without
affecting the environment and food security and being economically af-
fordable for society (Al-Hamamre et al., 2017).
When considering the sustainability of solid biofuels, the challenge
of scientists and technicians is that the management, conversion, and
delivery of those must be competitive to the market. Sustainability in-
volves not only environmental impact assessment (e.g., air or water af-
fectation) but also economic (e.g., rural development) and social
assessment (e.g., human rights, social welfare). Therefore, the key
point is to describe the criteria or international guidelines to define
the sustainability of a biofuel. The use of biofuel is rapidly increasing, es-
pecially for decision-makers and policymakers that promote energy
projects to maximise such three pillars of sustainable development.
Thus, it is necessary to examine widely recognised methodologies
such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Sustainability Assess-
ment (LCSA) and describe other available frameworks to ensure solid
biofuels sustainability (Al-Hamamre et al., 2017).
Biomass is considered the most common source to produce renew-
able energy as it is highly abundant on earth. Indeed, biomass repre-
sents about 70% of total renewable energy production. Besides,
thermochemical processes as direct burning, pyrolysis and gasification
are often used to produce solid biofuels (Raud et al., 2019). Regarding
GHG emissions, modern biofuels plants can provide energy with very
low GHG emissions (GHG savings around +85% to −30% (Berazneva
et al., 2021)). Despite this affirmation, it has been noted that the evalu-
ation of the solid biofuel feedstock is one of the most relevant aspects
determining the environmental impact. To illustrate this, regional agri-
cultural practices can have a strong influence on the environmental as-
sessment, and therefore these biofuels may not be sustainable. For
example, in Colombia, sustainable biomass production comprises an ef-
ficient use of natural resources and it is estimated that 60 Mha of land
possibly will be available for energy purposes. Likewise, residues from
forestry, animal manure and urban waste can produce up to 300 PJ,
27 PJ and 14 PJ, respectively, by 2030. By the next four decades, biomass
in Colombia may reach up to 5200 PJ, which represents 6.5 times the
current total energy consumption of the country. Although economic
pressures have led to land-use changes in the landscape, it has been
recognised that it is possible to expand energy crops areas and preserve
biodiversity (Ramirez-Contreras and Faaij, 2018). In essence, the main
concern when applying environmental assessment tools is the number
of factors that can or cannot be considered to quantify the environmen-
tal performance, and subsequently, their interpretation may affect the
results. For this reason, assessment tools that consider all life cycles of
solid biofuels are demanded (Dunn, 2019).
At this point it is vital to establish a comparison between solid
biofuels and fossil fuels to understand better their own benefits and dis-
advantages. For instance, in terms of global warming potential, hard
coal, compared to solid biofuels, produces 10.6 times more kg CO2-eq
per MJ (Wolf et al., 2016). Table 3 summarises and contrasts different
aspects of solid biofuels with those of conventional fossil fuels. In

8
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al. Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816

Table 3 Comparatively, transportation occurs between the field and the

Comparison between solid biofuels and fossil fuels (Darda et al., 2019; Malico et al., 2019). biorefinery and between the biorefinery and the point of sale. After-
Environmental Solid biofuels Fossil fuels wards, the conversion processes take place in the biorefinery, which
aspect can be biochemical, thermochemical or a hybrid design. The optimisa-
Carbon emissions CO2 neutral. Closed carbon Non-CO2 neutral. GHG tion of these processes can influence the LCA results. Finally, the solid
cycle by photosynthesis. emissions contribute to biofuels are combusted, returning the biogenic carbon to the atmo-
climate change. sphere, although solid biofuels may also be considered longer-lived
Global energy supply [%] 9.3 (total biomass) 78.2
bioproducts since they may degrade over centuries, and so the biogenic
Share in energy Much lower than fossil The greatest
production until 2030 fuels. carbon may be classified as sequestered (Dunn, 2019). Although LCA of
Heating value Low High biofuels has gained interest in the last years, most of these studies focus
Bulk density Low High on bioethanol/biodiesel rather than on solid biofuels, and this lack of
Grindability Low High solid-biofuel oriented LCA has been noted in the literature.
Energy density Low High
Moisture content High Low
Conflicting results can also be present in LCA studies because of hav-
Renewable energy source Biomass is available in Require a long/period to ing different definitions for variables and assumptions used in this
nature and requires a short be generated. methodology. Likewise, there is overlooking for some influencing vari-
time to be generated. ables that will influence the results of the LCA. Despite numerous stud-
Safety Energy crops represent a The extraction of fossil
ies that can be found in the literature, these often ignore essential
safe way to produce fuels can cause severe
biofuels. consequences to the factors such as operation/control and management steps, with its pri-
environment. mordial focus on a specific processing unit as it has been highlighted
Social impact Biofuels can provide new Economic and social previously. Moreover, LCA studies have been criticised for being ‘subjec-
job opportunities by disturbances can easily tive’ due to choices in environmental impact categories. To solve this
boosting an independent affect oil economy.
issue, consistency checks must be carried out during the interpretation
economy.
phase of the LCA study. In other words, the influence of variations in as-
sumptions, data, and methods must be analysed since they will impact
general, solid biofuels exhibit more advantages than their fossil fuel the results (Chamkalani et al., 2020). Apart from that, LCA methodology
counterparts, such as (a) being considered sustainable because of their focuses on measuring environmental impacts in the operational system
degradation properties and (b) biomass combustion is based on the (greenhouse emissions, transportation land use, waste management)
CO2 cycle (Gaurav et al., 2017). However, solid biofuels show lower per- while lacking social and economic assessment. When assessing the sus-
formance than fossil fuels when other properties are examined, such as tainability of solid biofuels, economic and social impacts, e.g., social
heating value, bulk density, grindability and energy density. These var- well-being and job creation, might positively influence the communities
iables can be circumvented by performing biomass upgrading (Malico where solid biofuels are produced, generating opportunities and rising
et al., 2019). Other studies have also established a comparison between employment contributing to economic growth.
these two types of fuels under the impact categories of the Intergovern- On the other hand, certification schemes also use a framework of in-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These categories include emis- dicators to carry out a more simplified (but holistic) assessment, includ-
sion factors related to global warming, primary energy consumption, ing environmental, economic, and social aspects. One example of these
particulate matter emissions, aquatic freshwater eutrophication and systems is the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) which has
acidification. For instance, when an LCA methodology was applied, dif- been highlighted as the most comprehensive choice available since it in-
ferent emission factors vary between solid biofuels and fossil fuels. corporates social sustainability principles (Christoforou and Fokaides,
The study compared these fuels in Bavaria, where solid biofuels showed 2019; Collotta et al., 2019). Organisations like the World Wildlife Fund
lower emission values than fossil fuels, excluding eutrophication and (WWF), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
acidification emission categories, as shown in Table 4 (Wolf et al., 2016). and the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) have recognised
One of the widely used methods to assess the sustainability of solid the RSB as the strongest of its kind. The RSB includes the use of LCA
biofuels is the LCA. For instance, one LCA study on solid biofuels methodologies (Principle 3 ‘Greenhouse gas emission’) but implies an
(pelleting process) carried out by Kylili et al. (2016) showed that incor- understanding in other areas such as human and labour rights (Princi-
porating renewable energy systems may lead up to 85% of the impact ple 4), rural and social development (Principle 5) and land rights (Prin-
decrease for categories like climate change, acidification, and photo- ciple 12). In other words, through the incorporation of these indicator
chemical ozone formation. During LCA, energy and resources require- sets within the LCSA, the sustainability assessment would increase
ments and all emissions coming from the operational process are (Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, 2017).
listed in an inventory based on mass and energy balances (Arun and Sustainable energy and thus solid biofuels also play a significant role
Dalai, 2020). As a result, several tools consolidate an LCA that assesses in energy access and energy security, expanding energy availability and
the overall sustainability of the system. As shown in Fig. 2, five main improving human health (Dolata, 2017). Access to secure, sustainable,
stages are evaluated within an LCA study; however, there are several and affordable energy is one of the major challenges facing the human-
factors to consider in each of these stages, which will depend on the ity. As discussed earlier, energy recovery from renewable sources consti-
goal and scope of the LCA study. For instance, feedstock production is tutes a unique opportunity towards sustainable energy, albeit political,
the most complex stage to analyse, and it involves agricultural equip- economic, social, and environmental initiatives should also be promoted
ment, fertilizer application and irrigation rates at a specific location. and applied in parallel through integrated and coordinated actions. It is

Table 4
Emission factors comparison between solid fuels and fossil fuels (Wolf et al., 2016).

Fuela GW, kg CO2-eq/MJ PE (non-renewable), MJ/MJ PM, kg PM2.5-eq/MJ ET, kg P-eq/MJ AC, mol H+ eq/MJ
−5 −8
Hard coal 0.106 1.07 1.11 × 10 1.65 × 10 2.09 × 10−4
LPG 0.084 1.17 6.37 × 10−6 3.38 × 10−8 1.18 × 10−4
Natural gas 0.066 1.08 1.59 × 10−6 3.38 × 10−8 1.18 × 10−4
Solid biofuels 0.010 0.102 1.39 × 10−4 4.50 × 10−6 1.59 × 10−4
a
All emission factors are measured per MJ of final energy. GW: global warming; PE: primary energy consumption non-renewable; PM: particulate matter; ET: freshwater eutrophi-
cation; AC: acidification.

9
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
Fig. 2. Stages of solid biofuels LCA evaluation.
(Adapted from Dunn, 2019; Volpe and Fiori, 2017.)
worth mentioning that solid biofuels, to date, are complementing
existing conventional energy sources to boost energy supply and secu-
rity, and it is expected that their current share could significatively in-
crease in the coming decades. On the other hand, the relationship
between food and energy security depends on each other, so that any in-
crease in the food dimension leads to an increase in energy demand.
In the same way, energy is essential for the dimension of food secu-
rity. For instance, improved cookstoves that use less solid fuel can per-
form better energy efficiency, fewer GHG emissions, and fewer
respiratory illnesses. Lastly, this enhances food security with better-
cooked food (Schuenemann et al., 2018).
As solid biofuels represent an opportunity for transition for develop-
ing economies, Latin American countries have boosted efforts to pro-
mote the production and research of biofuels. Many factors influence
the sustainability of the project, e.g., land-use competition, agricultural
practices, and environmental aspects that, in many cases, the impacts
have been negative. Due to a large number of conflicts in this region, es-
pecially in Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia (main markets), several tools,
like the Inter-American Development Bank Sustainability Scorecard and
initiatives, such as The Better Sugarcane Initiative and The Roundtable
for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), have been implemented to accomplish
sustainability in the biofuel industry. These initiatives share similar prin-
ciples, such as reducing emissions to air and water, biodiversity conser-
vation, and bringing social and economic benefits such as the well-being
of indigenous populations, commitment to respect the rights of local
people, and public awareness (Janssen and Rutz, 2011).
5. The economic perspective of solid biofuels
The production of a diversified portfolio of solid biofuels is already a
profitable investment in many developing countries worldwide, even
under unfavourable economic scenarios (in high inflation and interest
rates scenarios), a solid biofuel production project can still be feasible
if it shows a high internal return rate (IRR) (Hu et al., 2014; Nabavi
et al., 2020). However, in other countries, this is not the case yet; there-
fore, it can only be a feasible option under scenarios where public
10
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
policies facilitate its development via State intervention of the energy
market like biofuels mandates already in use in many developed and
developing countries, or via tax/subsidies (Ebadian et al., 2020;
Mwampamba et al., 2013).
In developing countries, solid biofuels are also being used to gener-
ate electrical energy, and they are significant contributors to the energy
mix. In Brazil, 8.1% of the total energy demand is provided by charcoal
and firewood (as heat and electricity) (Bonassa et al., 2018). Another
example can be found in Chile, where electricity companies are
enforced by law to provide users with a set share of electricity produced
by non-conventional renewable sources (e.g., solid biofuels). This share
has increased at a rate of 0.5% per year, with an average total share of 5%
between 2010 and 2014 (Rodríguez-Monroy et al., 2018).
Another great use of solid biofuels widely spread in developing
countries is heat generation, either for cooking, boilers, furnaces in in-
dustries, and other processes. Besides, pellets production is desirable
because it improves the storage and transportation mechanisms of the
final product, which is directly reflected in the final cost of the biofuel
(Sawadogo et al., 2018; Marrugo et al., 2019; Valdés et al., 2020). For in-
stance, torrefied biomass possesses enhanced fuel properties and en-
ergy efficiency (i.e., higher heating value, energy density, and
hydrophobicity) and exhibits superior handling, storage, and transpor-
tation characteristics. This aspect makes torrefied pellets a high-
quality feedstock for syngas production via gasification (Chen et al.,
2015). It is common and recommendable to integrate biofuels produc-
tion of hydrochar, biochar or torrefied carbon with the pelletizing pro-
cess; to reduce production costs and be more competitive with the
current market (Sukiran et al., 2017). Thus, pellets are the most used
solid biofuel for this purpose, and for this reason, it has become the
fastest-growing commodity (Lamers et al., 2012).
Table 5 exemplifies the different case studies in developing countries
where the sustainability and economic feasibility of solid biofuels were
evaluated. The environmental benefits of solid biofuel from solid waste
(s) have been clearly stated as one of the more significant advantages
compared with conventional fuels; in most of the cases studies pre-
sented, the GHG emissions from fossil fuel are 20 times higher than
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
Table 5
Sustainability of solid biofuel production (GHG and economic feasibility) for different use in the energy sectors.
Solid biofuel Use
Agave bagasse Industrial boiler (7.8 MW)
Agave + wood chips
Coffee bagasse pellets Industrial boiler (33 MW)
Forest biomass briquettes Local use (reduce deforestation
activities)
Rice husk briquettes Electricity generation for country
use (2.5 TWh/year)
Wood pellets (sawdust Residential boilers (180 kW)
and wood chips) Pellet production in 3 scenarios:
0.048, 0.075, and 0.12 Mt/year of
nominal capacity
a
Levelized cost of electricity.
those attained from solid biofuels, which represent a significant emis-
sion reduction at the long term and the available international agree-
ments. Besides, the transport of raw material or solid biofuels is the
predominant factor for GHG emission; this could signify that, if further
reduction is desired or required, it should be considered at the scale of
local production and consumption of the products. For instance, at the
industrial level that operates at the locality of solid waste generation,
it is expected to have the same heat and electricity requirements. The
economic feasibility of any solid biofuel projects is affected by the plant-
ing area when agricultural waste is used, primarily because of the fol-
lowing reasons: feedstock variability, transport requirements, the
initial cost of the equipment (for biofuel production and combustion)
and energy requirements, the fossil fuel prices in the market, the energy
sales prices, consumption opportunities, among others (Duran García
et al., 2021; Nabavi et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2021; Ullah et al., 2021).
In Latin America, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile established a pellets
market meant to provide heat to the industrial sector (Arteaga-Pérez
et al., 2015; Hess et al., 2011; Junginger et al., 2006). Meanwhile, in
Mexico, there is not an established market yet. A study performed in
Mexico by Tauro et al. (2018a) shows that, for the industrial sector,
standard fuels, such as coal, coke, and natural gas, still exhibit low prices,
and pellets could not substitute them. Nonetheless, sawdust pellets can
be competitive with current prices compare to fuel oil (7.2 US$/GJ) and
can cover up to 64% of the fuel oil market. The latter is given under the
condition that pellet production must be located at a maximum distance
of 220 km from the final use; otherwise, transportation costs will make
sawdust pellets more expensive than fuel oil. In the same study, the au-
thors prove that different biofuels show different competitiveness
(compared to fossil fuels) regarding transportation distance.
Pellets are more affordable for long distances (>610 km), and espe-
cially when they are conceived to substitute liquified petroleum gas
(LPG) (16.2 US$/J), and over short distances, other solid biofuels are
more competitive. Wood chips in Chile can also be a feasible alternative
(0.015–0.019 €/MWh) to other commonly used fuels like firewood
(0.020–0.026 €/MWh), LPG (0.044 €/MWh), and diesel (0.5 €/MWh),
under certain conditions for district heating (Niklitschek et al., 2020).
Some African countries, e.g., Kenya, are discovering the potential of
wood pellets to be employed in cooking and industrial activities as a
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
GHG emissions Economic feasibility Reference
<0.01 kg CO2-eq/MJ Generation cost: US$ 5/GJ (vs US$ 17/GJ – fuel oil) (Duran García et al., 2021)
(vs 0.1 - fuel oil) Payback time: 2.1 years
<0.04 kg CO2-eq/MJ Generation cost: US$ 9/GJ (vs US$ 17/GJ – fuel oil)
(vs 0.1 -fuel oil) Payback time: 4.93 years
<0.015 kg CO2-eq/MJ Generation cost: US$ 0.21/kg (vs US$ 4.17/GJ – fuel oil)
(vs 0.045 – natural gas) Payback time: 3 years
IRR: 23–29%
Flue gas emission: Production costs: US$ 0.04/kg (Ullah et al., 2021)
1.4–3.9% CO2 Payback time: 0.9 years
1018–2918 ppm CO Benefit-cost ratio: 1.39
33–84% NO
35–88 ppm NOx
0.15–0.26% SOx
56.25 g CO2-eq/kWh (vs LCOEa: US$ 112.2/MWh (Silva et al., 2021)
995 g CO2-eq/kWh NPV: US$ 30 million (for US$ 74.94/MWh of energy
thermal coal) sale rate)
US$ 7.5 million (for US$ 59.14/MWh of energy sale
rate)
US$ −15 million (for US$ 43.34/MWh of energy sale
rate)
111 kg CO2-eq/ton Production cost: 104, 108 and 107 €/Mt (Nabavi et al., 2020)
(pellet production) IRR: 124.3%, 41.3%, and 45.8%
NPV: €7.8, €7.8, and €14 millions
Payback time: 1.83, 3.53, 3.23 years
Energy production cost: 43.5 €/MWh (vs 25.9 and 22.3
€/MWh from gasoline and natural gas respectively)
profitable alternative contrasting with other biofuels and fossil fuels
(Jacobson and Ciolkosz, 2020).
However, the competitiveness of solid biofuels is not always
reflected. One example is China, where coal prices (5.71 US$/GJ) for
heat generation are still lower than for pellets (11.52 US$/GJ). Therefore,
it is fundamental that governments provide subsidies or other State-
mediated market interventions to shorten this gap in this type of
scenario. These measures will allow governments to meet their GHG
reduction goals (Paris Agreement) and achieve a better air quality that
will reduce costs caused by morbidity and mortality burdens associated
with this issue (Wang et al., 2017).
Lee et al. (2021) established the viability of solid biofuel production
of a massive local generated waste such as spend coffee ground in
Malaysia. Biochar was developed through an optimised slow pyrolysis
process (see Table 1), obtaining a solid biofuel with favourable fuel
characteristics (83% fixed carbon content, 12.28% volatile matter and
2.22% ash content), 1.4–fold higher HHV and 30 times more fuel ratio
than the raw feedstock. Additionally, an economic evaluation deter-
mined the cost-effectiveness of the process in the context of the project,
proving the competitiveness of biochar. The biochar cost was estimated
at $7.22 per kg, which 75% is related to the feedstock pretreatment
(i.e., drying). However, emerging solid biofuels (e.g., biochar and
hydrochar) market dynamics and production projects in developing
countries are still unfortunately scarce, and in the biochar case, it pri-
marily considers it a soil amendment. Therefore, analysis considering
the economic feasibility of biochar projects cannot be easily considered
because income projections are based on price for agricultural applica-
tion. In the case of hydrochar, the current economic evaluation is
based on laboratory-scale experiments. According to Kumar et al.
(2020), the final price of hydrochar depends on the plant capacity, feed-
stock use, design, and process parameters, among others; and same as
pellets, in some cases, the price is not competitive with established
fuels as bituminous coal for instance (4 times higher).
Measuring the possible effects of the aforementioned State interven-
tions in the energy market (taxes and subsidies) is complex, either be-
cause not even developed countries have implemented such economic
tools or because if they did so, the literature and policies regarding the
topic are still scarce. However, some studies have already used (partially
11
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
or non-partially) equilibrium models to assess the impacts of such inter-
ventions. Their conclusions mainly reflect that biofuel can further
penetrate the energy market when applying carbon taxes (Janssen
and De Vries, 2000; Schneider and McCarl, 2005). Nevertheless, si-
multaneous subsidies on biofuels (solid or not) may also be required
(Timilsina et al., 2011). More research is needed to determine the
likely effects of State interventions in the local and international en-
ergy market and the spill over consequences in the economy when
increasing fossil fuel prices.
6. Future perspectives of solid biofuels in developing countries
Evidently, based on the review of existing scientific literature
and reports, solid waste generation in developing countries is enor-
mous (i.e., mainly agricultural residues), and appropriate manage-
ment is required at the local and national level by involving all the
stakeholders, including the farming community. Different techno-
logical and management alternatives have been investigated and re-
ported, yielding promising results; however, the next step will be
implementing these technologies and management strategies at
the local level. As Table 1 exemplifies, the quality of solid biofuels
produced in developing countries is highly competitive with those
that are generated in the developed countries (perhaps with more
sophisticated technologies), proving the adaptability and effective-
ness of these promising technologies. Considering all the informa-
tion provided in this review, it is also evident that the challenges
to overcome in the near future are related more towards the socio-
economical, policy/governance and stakeholder involvement
aspects.
It is essential to highlight that selecting the best available tech-
nology (BAT) is crucial in developing countries. Therefore, those as-
pects should be addressed in future research because it is an
endeavouring activity where different actors/stakeholders are in-
volved. Hence, if a proper mechanism or procedure is created at
the local/regional level that benefits all the parties involved, the pro-
cess could be easily implemented at the local/regional scale. In the
same way, management strategies that aim to implement the tech-
nologies in developing countries should be studied further through
questionnaire or field surveys (e.g., energy and personnel require-
ments, handling procedures, transportation, cost analysis, life cycle
inventory, health, and safety aspects, among others).
Thus, once the societal and economic aspects are fulfilled according
to the requirements, the production chain should also focus on develop-
ing engineered biochar so that the biomass can be converted to a value-
added product via thermochemical processes. Engineered biochar
endorses a broader range of applications for solid biofuels that contrib-
ute, to a deeper extent, to the energy matrix, e.g., in energy storage sys-
tems and biofuels with better combustion performances in furnaces
(Matali et al., 2016). Enhancing the properties and applications of bio-
char through physical or chemical activation provides the material
with better characteristics; in this way, it is necessary to couple two or
more technologies (e.g., pyrolysis and steam injection or chemical treat-
ments or another thermochemical treatment) in order to upgrade the
final product. For instance, optimising the operational conditions of py-
rolysis may produce biochar with larger superficial areas, which im-
proves the material's capacity to adsorb organic contaminants from
wastewater. Moreover, it has been shown that temperatures above
600 °C led to the generation of a more alkaline biochar, and this prop-
erty may favour the adsorption of heavy metals (Akhil et al., 2021).
However, the most relevant application of engineered biochar in the
context of solid biofuels is perhaps its use as a precursor in energy storage
systems, e.g., supercapacitors or fuel cells. For these applications, the treat-
ment and production of biochar should offer a final product quality that
has increased surface area, good pore-size distribution and it should be
able to remove a wide range of organic and inorganic pollutants present
in the contaminated water (Saavedra Rios et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021).
12
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
7. Conclusions and recommendations
Solid biofuels represent a cleaner energy alternative, consid-
ered renewable, to mitigate CO 2 emissions and yield a lower
overall environmental impact than fossil fuels, thus allowing lo-
cally recovery energy, which could fulfil the energy needs in devel-
oping countries, mainly in rural areas and remote locations.
Consequently, the implementation of solid biofuels in developing
countries represents a robust solution, given the wide variety of
feedstock available (demanding better management) and the cur-
rent technologies developed, encouraging, and facilitating their
production. Nevertheless, further measures and evaluation must
be taken regarding the strengthening of production and its econ-
omy, such as, choose the suitable pretreatment and technology
for the context evaluated (fuel quality vs energy efficiency), infra-
structure and personnel available, handling of raw feedstock and
solid biofuel, competitiveness in the local and international mar-
ket, among other.
From an economic perspective, solid biofuels are already a profitable
and sustainable energy source for heat and electricity generation in dif-
ferent activities. However, this fact is only observed in countries where
fossil fuel prices are high, perhaps because they are imported or because
the existence of public policies seems to reduce their use, e.g., Pigouvian
taxes or subsidies biofuels. Consequently, this reality might not occur in
other areas where solid biofuels do not have a solid market yet. It is a
priority that governments and related stakeholders define strategic
public policies to turn solid biofuels (and other clean and renewable en-
ergy sources) into a more profitable option in the energy market, so the
goals of carbon neutrality stated in the Paris Agreement can be fulfilled.
Finally, it is imperative to continue evaluating the sustainability and
economic viability of solid biofuels production technologies and yields
in developing countries. Social and economic factors must also be con-
sidered when assessing their sustainability, and the integration of mul-
tiple tools is highly recommended. Jointly with local and international
legislation and standards, it can be ensured that activities are carried
out according to the best practices to promote the use of solid biofuels
widely.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lina S. Angulo-Mosquera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Valida-
tion, Writing – original draft, Investigation. Allan A. Alvarado-Alvarado:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft,
Investigation. María J. Rivas-Arrieta: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Validation, Writing – original draft, Investigation. Carlos R. Cattaneo:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft,
Investigation. Eldon R. Rene: Conceptualization, Supervision. Octavio
García-Depraect: Writing – review & editing.
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.
Acknowledgements
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta,
and C.R. Cattaneo thank the European Commission under the Erasmus
+ International Master of Science in Environmental Technology and En-
gineering (IMETE) for financing and supporting the M.Sc. programme at
the University of Chemistry and Technology (Czech Republic), IHE Delft
Institute for Water Education (The Netherlands), and Ghent University
(Belgium) [Project number 2017-1957/001-001-EMJMD]. The authors
also thank the Environmental Science (ES) programme at IHE Delft for
providing staff time support.
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
References
Abdel Wahaab, R., Mahmoud, M., van Lier, J.B., 2020. Toward achieving sustainable man-
agement of municipal wastewater sludge in Egypt: the current status and future pro-
spective. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 127, 109880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.109880.
Afra, E., Abyaz, A., Saraeyan, A., 2021. The production of bagasse biofuel briquettes and the
evaluation of natural binders (LNFC, NFC, and lignin) effects on their technical param-
eters. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123543.
Akhil, D., Lakshmi, D., Kartik, A., Vo, D.V.N., Arun, J., Gopinath, K.P., 2021. Production, char-
acterisation, activation and environmental applications of engineered biochar: a re-
view. Environmental Chemistry Letters. Springer International Publishing https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01167-7.
Al-Hamamre, Z., Saidan, M., Hararah, M., Rawajfeh, K., Alkhasawneh, H.E., Al-Shannag, M.,
2017. Wastes and biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy resources for
Jordan. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 67, 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.09.035.
Arteaga-Pérez, L.E., Vega, M., Rodríguez, L.C., Flores, M., Zaror, C.A., Casas Ledón, Y., 2015.
Life-cycle assessment of coal-biomass based electricity in Chile: focus on using raw vs
torrefied wood. Energy Sustain. Dev. 29, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
esd.2015.10.004.
Arun, N., Dalai, A.K., 2020. Environmental and socio-economic impact assessment of
biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Liquid Biofuels.
INC https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815936-1.00009-5.
Asongu, S.A., Agboola, M.O., Alola, A.A., Bekun, F.V., 2020. The criticality of growth, urban-
isation, electricity and fossil fuel consumption to environment sustainability in Africa.
Sci. Total Environ. 712, 136376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136376.
Atay, O.A., Ekinci, K., 2020. Characterisation of pellets made from rose oil processing solid
wastes/coal powder/pine bark. Renew. Energy 149, 933–939. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.070.
Azasi, V.D., Offei, F., Kemausuor, F., Akpalu, L., 2020. Bioenergy from crop residues: a re-
gional analysis for heat and electricity applications in Ghana. Biomass Bioenergy
140, 105640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105640.
Azevedo, B.D., Scavarda, L.F., Caiado, R.G.G., 2019. Urban solid waste management in de-
veloping countries from the sustainable supply chain management perspective: a
case study of Brazil’s largest slum. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 1377–1386. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.162.
Beig, B., Riaz, M., Raza Naqvi, S., Hassan, M., Zheng, Z., Karimi, K., Pugazhendhi, A., Atabani,
A.E., Thuy Lan Chi, N., 2020. Current challenges and innovative developments in pre-
treatment of lignocellulosic residues for biofuel production: a review. Fuel, 119670
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119670.
Berazneva, J., Woolf, D., Lee, D.R., 2021. Local lignocellulosic biofuel and biochar co-
production in Sub-Saharan Africa: the role of feedstock provision in economic viabil-
ity. Energy Econ. 93, 105031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105031.
Bonassa, G., Schneider, L.T., Canever, V.B., Cremonez, P.A., Frigo, E.P., Dieter, J., Teleken, J.G.,
2018. Scenarios and prospects of solid biofuel use in Brazil. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
82, 2365–2378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.075.
Brutschin, E., Fleig, A., 2016. Innovation in the energy sector – the role of fossil fuels and
developing economies. Energy Policy 97, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2016.06.041.
Chamkalani, A., Zendehboudi, S., Rezaei, N., Hawboldt, K., 2020. A critical review on life
cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: current challenges and future prospects. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 134, 110143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110143.
Chen, L., Xing, L., Han, L., 2009. Renewable energy from agro-residues in China: solid
biofuels and biomass briquetting technology. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13,
2689–2695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.025.
Chen, W.H., Peng, J., Bi, X.T., 2015. A state-of-the-art review of biomass torrefaction, den-
sification and applications. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 44, 847–866. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.039.
Chen, X., Ma, X., Peng, X., Lin, Y., Yao, Z., 2018. Conversion of sweet potato waste to solid
fuel via hydrothermal carbonisation. Bioresour. Technol. 249, 900–907. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.096.
Chen, H., Mangwandi, C., Rooney, D., 2019. Production of solid biofuel granules from drum
granulation of bio-waste with silicate-based binders. Powder Technol. 354, 231–239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.05.074.
Christoforou, E., Fokaides, P.A., 2019. Advances in solid biofuels, green energy and tech-
nology. Green Energy and Technology. Springer International Publishing, Cham
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00862-8.
Collotta, M., Champagne, P., Tomasoni, G., Alberti, M., Busi, L., Mabee, W., 2019. Critical in-
dicators of sustainability for biofuels: an analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty as-
sessment perspective. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 115, 109358. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2019.109358.
Czekała, W., Bartnikowska, S., Dach, J., Janczak, D., Smurzyńska, A., Kozłowski, K., Bugała,
A., Lewicki, A., Cieślik, M., Typańska, D., Mazurkiewicz, J., 2018. The energy value
and economic efficiency of solid biofuels produced from digestate and sawdust. En-
ergy 159, 1118–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.090.
Darda, S., Papalas, T., Zabaniotou, A., 2019. Biofuels journey in Europe: currently the way
to low carbon economy sustainability is still a challenge. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 575–588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.147.
Dey, D., Gyeltshen, T., Aich, A., Naskar, M., Roy, A., 2020. Climate adaptive crop-residue
management for soil-function improvement; recommendations from field interven-
tions at two agro-ecological zones in South Asia. Environ. Res. 183, 109164. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109164.
Dolata, P., 2017. Energy security. The Palgrave Handbook of Security, Risk and Intelli-
gence. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp. 47–62 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-
137-53675-4_3.
13
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
Dunn, J.B., 2019. Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability analysis. Curr. Opin.
Biotechnol. 57, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.02.008.
Duran García, M.D., Weber, B., Jiménez García, J., González-Mora, E., 2021. The application
of solid biofuels as a source of process energy in Mexico: case studies using agave and
coffee waste. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin., 1–12 https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2230.
Ebadian, M., van Dyk, S., McMillan, J.D., Saddler, J., 2020. Biofuels policies that have en-
couraged their production and use: an international perspective. Energy Policy 147,
111906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111906.
EIA, 2020a. Country analysis executive summary: China. https://www.eia.gov/interna-
tional/content/analysis/countries_long/China/china.pdf.
EIA, 2020b. Country analysis executive summary: India. https://www.eia.gov/interna-
tional/content/analysis/countries_long/India/india.pdf.
El Haggar, S.M., 2005. Rural and developing country solutions. In: Agardy, F.J., Nemerow,
N.L. (Eds.), Environmental Solutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
pp. 313–400 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088441-4/50015-0.
European Parliament and the Council, 2005. Communciation from the commission: bio-
mass action plan. Biomass 1–47.
Fajfrlíková, P., Brunerová, A., Roubík, H., 2020. Analyses of waste treatment in rural areas
of East Java with the possibility of low-pressure briquetting press application. Sus-
tainability 12, 8153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198153.
FAO, 2021. Crops [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/vi-
sualize. (Accessed 6 May 2021).
FAO/GBEP, 2007. A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8+5
Countries (Italy).
Ferrans, L., Tamara, A., Müller, A., Hiroshan, H., Christina, D., Serena, C., 2020. Selecting
sustainable sewage sludge reuse options through a systematic assessment frame-
work: methodology and case study in Latin America. J. Clean. Prod. 242, 118389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118389.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017. The global bioenergy
partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy. European Biomass Conference
and Exhibition Proceedings.
Gaigalis, V., Skema, R., 2016. A review on solid biofuel usage in Lithuania after the decom-
mission of Ignalina NPP and compliance with the EU policy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
54, 974–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.089.
Gaurav, N., Sivasankari, S., Kiran, G.S., Ninawe, A., Selvin, J., 2017. Utilisation of
bioresources for sustainable biofuels: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 73,
205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.070.
Gutiérrez Ortiz, F.J., Kruse, A., Ramos, F., Ollero, P., 2019. Integral energy valorisation of
municipal solid waste reject fraction to biofuels. Energy Convers. Manag. 180,
1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.085.
Hess, J.R., Jacobson, J., Nelson, R., Wolf, C., 2011. International Energy Agency (IEA) Task
40? Sustainable International Energy Trade: Securing Supply and Demand — Country
Report 2010 for the United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/1035904.
Ho, S.-H., Zhang, C., Chen, W.-H., Shen, Y., Chang, J.-S., 2018. Characterisation of biomass
waste torrefaction under conventional and microwave heating. Bioresour. Technol.
264, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.047.
Hu, J., Lei, T., Wang, Z., Yan, X., Shi, X., Li, Z., He, X., Zhang, Q., 2014. Economic, environ-
mental and social assessment of briquette fuel from agricultural residues in China –
a study on flat die briquetting using corn stalk. Energy 64, 557–566. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.028.
Ifa, L., Yani, S., Nurjannah, N., Darnengsih, D., Rusnaenah, A., Mel, M., Mahfud, M., Kusuma,
H.S., 2020. Techno-economic analysis of bio-briquette from cashew nut shell waste.
Heliyon 6, e05009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05009.
Islam, Md Atikul, Akber, M.A., Limon, S.H., Akbor, M.A., Islam, Md Azharul, 2019. Charac-
terisation of solid biofuel produced from banana stalk via hydrothermal
carbonisation. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 9, 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13399-019-00405-5.
Jacobson, M., Ciolkosz, D., 2020. Plantation forestry and pellet production in Kenya. Bio-
mass Bioenergy 135, 105519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105519.
Janssen, M.A., De Vries, B., 2000. Climate change policy targets and the role of technolog-
ical change. Clim. Chang. 46, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005661220604.
Janssen, R., Rutz, D.D., 2011. Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: risks and opportu-
nities. Energy Policy 39, 5717–5725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.047.
Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Schouwenberg, P.-P., Arthers, C., Bradley, D., Best, G., Heinimö, J.,
Hektor, B., Horstink, P., Grassi, A., Kwant, K., Leistad, Ø., Ling, E., Peksa, M., Ranta, T.,
Rosillo-Calle, F., Ryckmans, Y., Wagener, M., Walter, A., Woods, J., 2006. IEA Bioenergy
Task 40 Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade: Securing Supply and Demand
Technology Report Opportunities and Barriers for Sustainable International
Bioenergy Trade Operating Agent.
Kang, K., Nanda, S., Sun, G., Qiu, L., Gu, Y., Zhang, T., Zhu, M., Sun, R., 2019. Microwave-
assisted hydrothermal carbonisation of corn stalk for solid biofuel production: opti-
misation of process parameters and characterisation of hydrochar. Energy 186,
115795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.07.125.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snap-
shot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. The World Bank, Washington DC https://
doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0.
Kim, D., Lee, K., Park, K.Y., 2016. Upgrading the characteristics of biochar from cellulose,
lignin, and xylan for solid biofuel production from biomass by hydrothermal
carbonisation. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 42, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jiec.2016.07.037.
Kongprasert, N., Wangphanich, P., Jutilarptavorn, A., 2019. Charcoal briquettes from
Madan wood waste as an alternative energy in Thailand. Proc. Manuf. 30, 128–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.019.
Kshirsagar, M.P., Arora, A., Chandra, H., 2012. Estimation of anaerobic codigestion poten-
tial of agri-waste in India and comparative financial analysis. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 31,
175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478646X.2011.555819.
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
Kumar, A., Saini, K., Bhaskar, T., 2020. Hydochar and biochar: production, physicochemical
properties and techno-economic analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 310, 123442. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123442.
Kumari, D., Singh, R., 2018. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes for biofuel production:
a critical review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 90, 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.03.111.
Kylili, A., Christoforou, E., Fokaides, P.A., 2016. Environmental evaluation of biomass
pelleting using life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 84, 107–117. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.11.018.
Lamers, P., Junginger, M., Hamelinck, C., Faaij, A., 2012. Developments in international
solid biofuel trade - an analysis of volumes, policies, and market factors. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 16, 3176–3199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.027.
Lee, X.J., Ong, H.C., Gao, W., Ok, Y.S., Chen, W.-H., Goh, B.H.H., Chong, C.T., 2021. Solid bio-
fuel production from spent coffee ground wastes: process optimisation, characterisa-
tion and kinetic studies. Fuel 292, 120309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2021.120309.
Li, T., Remón, J., Shuttleworth, P.S., Jiang, Z., Fan, J., Clark, J.H., Budarin, V.L., 2017. Control-
lable production of liquid and solid biofuels by doping-free, microwave-assisted,
pressurised pyrolysis of hemicellulose. Energy Convers. Manag. 144, 104–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.055.
Lim, J.S., Abdul Manan, Z., Wan Alwi, S.R., Hashim, H., 2012. A review on utilisation of bio-
mass from rice industry as a source of renewable energy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16,
3084–3094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.051.
Liu, B., Wei, Q., Zhang, B., Bi, J., 2013a. Life cycle GHG emissions of sewage sludge treat-
ment and disposal options in Tai Lake Watershed, China. Sci. Total Environ. 447,
361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.019.
Liu, Z., Quek, A., Kent Hoekman, S., Balasubramanian, R., 2013b. Production of solid bio-
char fuel from waste biomass by hydrothermal carbonisation. Fuel 103, 943–949.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.07.069.
Londoño-Pulgarin, D., Cardona-Montoya, G., Restrepo, J.C., Muñoz-Leiva, F., 2021. Fossil or
bioenergy? Global fuel market trends. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 143, 110905. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110905.
Lubwama, M., Yiga, V.A., 2018. Characteristics of briquettes developed from rice and cof-
fee husks for domestic cooking applications in Uganda. Renew. Energy 118, 43–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.003.
Magnago, R.F., Costa, S.C., Assunção Ezirio, M.J. de, Godoy Saciloto, V. de, Cremona Parma,
G.O., Gasparotto, E.S., Gonçalves, A.C., Tutida, A.Y., Barcelos, R.L., 2020. Briquettes of
citrus peel and rice husk. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 123820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123820.
Malico, I., Nepomuceno Pereira, R., Gonçalves, A.C., Sousa, A.M.O., 2019. Current status and
future perspectives for energy production from solid biomass in the European indus-
try. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 112, 960–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.022.
Marrugo, G., Valdés, C.F., Gómez, C., Chejne, F., 2019. Pelletizing of Colombian agro-
industrial biomasses with crude glycerol. Renew. Energy 134, 558–568. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.004.
Matali, S., Rahman, N.A., Idris, S.S., Yaacob, N., Alias, A.B., 2016. Lignocellulosic biomass
solid fuel properties enhancement via torrefaction. Proc. Eng. 148, 671–678. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.550.
Mendoza Martinez, C.L., Sermyagina, E., de Cassia Oliveira Carneiro, A., Vakkilainen, E.,
Cardoso, M., 2019. Production and characterisation of coffee-pine wood residue bri-
quettes as an alternative fuel for local firing systems in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy
123, 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.02.013.
Morseletto, P., 2020. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 153, 104553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553.
Mwampamba, T.H., Owen, M., Pigaht, M., 2013. Opportunities, challenges and way for-
ward for the charcoal briquette industry in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev.
17, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.10.006.
Nabavi, V., Azizi, M., Tarmian, A., Ray, C.D., 2020. Feasibility study on the production and
consumption of wood pellets in Iran to meet return-on-investment and greenhouse
gas emissions targets. Renew. Energy 151, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.10.140.
Nanda, S., Berruti, F., 2021. A technical review of bioenergy and resource recovery from
municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 403, 123970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.123970.
Niklitschek, M.E., Labbé, R., Guerrero, J., 2020. Heating and hot water with wood chips. Is
it convenient to replace firewood boilers in southern Chile? Energy Sustain. Dev. 55,
24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.12.001.
Nuagah, M.B., Boakye, P., Oduro-Kwarteng, S., Sokama-Neuyam, Y.A., 2020. Valorisation of
faecal and sewage sludge via pyrolysis for application as crop organic fertiliser. J. Anal.
Appl. Pyrolysis 151, 104903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2020.104903.
Nudri, N.A., Bachmann, R.T., Ghani, W.A.W.A.K., Sum, D.N.K., Azni, A.A., 2020. Characteri-
sation of oil palm trunk biocoal and its suitability for solid fuel applications. Biomass
Convers. Biorefinery 10, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00419-z.
Ogunkunle, O., Ahmed, N.A., 2019. A review of global current scenario of biodiesel adop-
tion and combustion in vehicular diesel engines. Energy Rep. 5, 1560–1579. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.10.028.
Olay-Romero, E., Turcott-Cervantes, D.E., Hernández-Berriel, M. del C., Lobo-García de
Cortázar, A., Cuartas-Hernández, M., de la Rosa-Gómez, I., 2020. Technical indicators
to improve municipal solid waste management in developing countries: a case in
Mexico. Waste Manag. 107, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.03.039.
Parra-Orobio, B.A., Angulo-Mosquera, L.S., Loaiza-Gualtero, J.S., Torres-López, W.A.,
Torres-Lozada, P., 2018. Inoculum mixture optimisation as strategy for to improve
the anaerobic digestion of food waste for the methane production. J. Environ.
Chem. Eng. 6, 1529–1535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.01.048.
14
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
Pellegrini, L., Arsel, M., Orta-Martínez, M., Mena, C.F., Muñoa, G., 2021. Institutional mech-
anisms to keep unburnable fossil fuel reserves in the soil. Energy Policy 149, 112029.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112029.
Ramesh, D., Kiruthika, T., Karthikeyan, S., 2021. Sustainable biorefinery technologies for
agro-residues: challenges and perspectives. Sustainable Bioeconomy. Springer
Singapore, Singapore, pp. 101–130 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7321-7_6.
Ramirez-Contreras, N.E., Faaij, A.P.C., 2018. A review of key international biomass and
bioenergy sustainability frameworks and certification systems and their application
and implications in Colombia. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 96, 460–478. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.001.
Rather, M.A., Khan, N.S., Gupta, R., 2017. Hydrothermal carbonisation of macrophyte
Potamogeton lucens for solid biofuel production: production of solid biofuel from
macrophyte Potamogeton lucens. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 20, 168–174. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.015.
Raud, M., Kikas, T., Sippula, O., Shurpali, N.J., 2019. Potentials and challenges in lignocellu-
losic biofuel production technology. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 111, 44–56. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.020.
Rayner, T., 2020. Keeping it in the ground? Assessing global governance for fossil-fuel sup-
ply reduction. Earth Syst. Gov., 100061 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100061.
Rodríguez-Monroy, C., Mármol-Acitores, G., Nilsson-Cifuentes, G., 2018. Electricity gener-
ation in Chile using non-conventional renewable energy sources – a focus on bio-
mass. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 81, 937–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.08.059.
Rojas, R., Mendoza, L., 2012. Use of biosolids for energetic recovery in México. Prod. más
limpia [Cleaner Prod.] 7, 74–94.
Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, 2017. A Guide to RSB Certification (doi:http://
rsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/RSB-Certification-Guide.pdf).
Saavedra Rios, C.D.M., Simonin, L., De Geyer, A., Ghimbeu, C.M., Dupont, C., 2020.
Unraveling the properties of biomass-derived hard carbons upon thermal treatment
for a practical application in na-ion batteries. Energies 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13143513.
Sahoo, K., Bilek, E., Bergman, R., Mani, S., 2019. Techno-economic analysis of producing
solid biofuels and biochar from forest residues using portable systems. Appl. Energy
235, 578–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.076.
Sajdak, M., Micek, B., Hrabak, J., 2019. Semi-quantitative and qualitative XRF analyses of
alternative and renewable second-generation solid biofuels: model development
and validation. J. Energy Inst. 92, 1619–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joei.2019.01.012.
Santos Santana, M., Pereira Alves, R., da Silva Borges, W.M., Francisquini, E., Guerreiro,
M.C., 2020. Hydrochar production from defective coffee beans by hydrothermal
carbonisation. Bioresour. Technol. 300, 122653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2019.122653.
Santos, C.M., Dweck, J., Viotto, R.S., Rosa, A.H., de Morais, L.C., 2015. Application of orange
peel waste in the production of solid biofuels and biosorbents. Bioresour. Technol.
196, 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.114.
Sawadogo, M., Tchini Tanoh, S., Sidibé, S., Kpai, N., Tankoano, I., 2018. Cleaner production
in Burkina Faso: case study of fuel briquettes made from cashew industry waste.
J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.261.
Schneider, U.A., McCarl, B.A., 2005. Implications of a carbon-based energy tax for U.S.
agriculture. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 34, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1068280500008418.
Schöpe, M., 2008. Renewable energy directive. Eur. Wind Energy Conf. Exhib 2008 (1),
32–38.
Schuenemann, F., Msangi, S., Zeller, M., 2018. Policies for a sustainable biomass energy
sector in Malawi: enhancing energy and food security simultaneously. World Dev.
103, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.011.
Sharma, H.B., Dubey, B.K., 2020. Co-hydrothermal carbonisation of food waste with yard
waste for solid biofuel production: hydrochar characterisation and its pelletisation.
Waste Manag. 118, 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.009.
Sharma, H.B., Panigrahi, S., Sarmah, A.K., Dubey, B.K., 2020a. Downstream augmentation
of hydrothermal carbonisation with anaerobic digestion for integrated biogas and
hydrochar production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: a circular
economy concept. Sci. Total Environ. 706, 135907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.135907.
Sharma, H.B., Sarmah, A.K., Dubey, B., 2020b. Hydrothermal carbonisation of renewable
waste biomass for solid biofuel production: a discussion on process mechanism, the
influence of process parameters, environmental performance and fuel properties of
hydrochar. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 123, 109761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.109761.
Silva, L.A., Santos, I.F.S. dos, Machado, G. de O., Tiago Filho, G.L., Barros, R.M., 2021. Rice
husk energy production in Brazil: an economic and energy extensive analysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 290, 125188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125188.
Silva-Martínez, R.D., Sanches-Pereira, A., Ortiz, W., Gómez Galindo, M.F., Coelho, S.T.,
2020. The state-of-the-art of organic waste to energy in Latin America and the Carib-
bean: challenges and opportunities. Renew. Energy 156, 509–525. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.056.
Singh, A., Sharma, R., Pant, D., Malaviya, P., 2021. Engineered algal biochar for contami-
nant remediation and electrochemical applications. Sci. Total Environ. 774, 145676.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145676.
Soeder, D.J., Borglum, S.J., 2020. Part II the future of fossil fuels. Foss. Fuel Revolut. Shale
Gas Tight Oil, 173–174 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815397-0.02002-4.
Sukiran, M.A., Abnisa, F., Wan Daud, W.M.A., Abu Bakar, N., Loh, S.K., 2017. A review of
torrefaction of oil palm solid wastes for biofuel production. Energy Convers. Manag.
149, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.011.
Tauro, R., García, C.A., Skutsch, M., Masera, O., 2018a. The potential for sustainable bio-
mass pellets in Mexico: an analysis of energy potential, logistic costs and market
L.S. Angulo-Mosquera, A.A. Alvarado-Alvarado, M.J. Rivas-Arrieta et al.
demand. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 82, 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.09.036.
Tauro, R., Serrano-Medrano, M., Masera, O., 2018b. Solid biofuels in Mexico: a sustainable
alternative to satisfy the increasing demand for heat and power. Clean Techn. Envi-
ron. Policy 20, 1527–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1529-z.
Theppitak, S., Hungwe, D., Ding, L., Xin, D., Yu, G., Yoshikawa, K., 2020. Comparison on
solid biofuel production from wet and dry carbonisation processes of food wastes.
Appl. Energy 272, 115264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115264.
Timilsina, G.R., Csordás, S., Mevel, S., 2011. When does a carbon tax on fossil fuels stimulate
biofuels? Ecol. Econ. 70, 2400–2415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.022.
Ullah, S., Noor, R.S., Sanaullah Gang, T., 2021. Analysis of biofuel (briquette) production
from forest biomass: a socioeconomic incentive towards deforestation. Biomass
Convers. Biorefinery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01311-5.
Unal, N.I., Mertdinc, S., Haykiri-Acma, H., Yaman, S., 2017. Comparison of the fuel proper-
ties and the combustion behavior of PET bottle caps with lignite. Energy Procedia.
Elsevier Ltd, pp. 22–26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.256.
United Nations, 2019. World population prospects [WWW document]. URL. https://pop-
ulation.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_10KeyFindings.pdf.
Valdés, C.F., Marrugo, G.P., Chejne, F., Marin-Jaramillo, A., Franco-Ocampo, J., Norena-
Marin, L., 2020. Co-gasification and co-combustion of industrial solid waste mixtures
and their implications on environmental emissions, as an alternative management.
Waste Manag. 101, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.037.
Vasanthi, P., Kaliappan, S., Srinivasaraghavan, R., 2008. Impact of poor solid waste man-
agement on ground water. Environ. Monit. Assess. 143, 227–238. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-007-9971-0.
Venkatesh, B., 2014. Current challenges in commercially producing biofuels from lignocel-
lulosic biomass. Int. Scholar. Res. Notices 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/463074.
Venna, S., Bhakta Sharma, H., Prasad Reddy, H., Chowdhury, S., Kumar Dubey, B., 2020.
Landfill leachate as an alternative moisture source for hydrothermal carbonisation
of municipal solid wastes to solid biofuels. Bioresour. Technol., 124410 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124410.
Voca, N., Ribic, B., 2020. Biofuel production and utilisation through smart and sustainable
biowaste management. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 120742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.120742.
Volpe, M., Fiori, L., 2017. From olive waste to solid biofuel through hydrothermal
carbonisation: the role of temperature and solid load on secondary char formation
and hydrochar energy properties. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 124, 63–72. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaap.2017.02.022.
Wan Mahari, W.A., Nam, W.L., Sonne, C., Peng, W., Phang, X.Y., Liew, R.K., Yek, P.N.Y., Lee,
X.Y., Wen, O.W., Show, P.L., Chen, W.-H., Chang, J.-S., Lam, S.S., 2020. Applying micro-
wave vacuum pyrolysis to design moisture retention and pH neutralising palm kernel
shell biochar for mushroom production. Bioresour. Technol. 312, 123572. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123572.
15
Science of the Total Environment 795 (2021) 148816
Wang, C., Chang, Y., Zhang, L., Pang, M., Hao, Y., 2017. A life-cycle comparison of the en-
ergy, environmental and economic impacts of coal versus wood pellets for generating
heat in China. Energy 120, 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.085.
Wang, F., Cheng, Z., Reisner, A., Liu, Y., 2018a. Compliance with household solid waste
management in rural villages in developing countries. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 293–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.135.
Wang, T., Zhai, Y., Zhu, Y., Gan, X., Zheng, L., Peng, C., Wang, B., Li, C., Zeng, G., 2018b. Eval-
uation of the clean characteristics and combustion behavior of hydrochar derived
from food waste towards solid biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. 266,
275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.093.
Wang, L., Chang, Y., Zhang, X., Yang, F., Li, Y., Yang, X., Dong, S., 2020. Hydrothermal co-
carbonisation of sewage sludge and high concentration phenolic wastewater for pro-
duction of solid biofuel with increased calorific value. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120317.
Wolf, C., Klein, D., Richter, K., Weber-Blaschke, G., 2016. Environmental effects of shifts in
a regional heating mix through variations in the utilisation of solid biofuels.
J. Environ. Manag. 177, 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.019.
Wyn, H.K., Zárate, S., Carrascal, J., Yermán, L., 2020. A novel approach to the production of
biochar with improved fuel characteristics from biomass waste. Waste Biomass Valor.
11, 6467–6481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00909-1.
Yilmaz, E., Wzorek, M., Akçay, S., 2018. Co-pelletization of sewage sludge and agri-
cultural wastes. J. Environ. Manag. 216, 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2017.09.012.
Zhao, P., Shen, Y., Ge, S., Chen, Z., Yoshikawa, K., 2014a. Clean solid biofuel production
from high moisture content waste biomass employing hydrothermal treatment.
Appl. Energy 131, 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.038.
Zhao, P., Shen, Y., Ge, S., Yoshikawa, K., 2014b. Energy recycling from sewage sludge by
producing solid biofuel with hydrothermal carbonisation. Energy Convers. Manag.
78, 815–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.026.
Zhou, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Yu, Y., Ji, F., Ahmad, R., Dong, R., 2016. A compre-
hensive review on densified solid biofuel industry in China. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
54, 1412–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.096.
Zhou, W., Niu, Z., Wu, S., Xiong, X., Hou, Y., Wang, P., Feng, T., Cheng, P., Du, H., Lu, X., An, Z.,
Burr, G.S., Zhu, Y., 2020a. Fossil fuel CO2 traced by radiocarbon in fifteen Chinese cities.
Sci. Total Environ. 729, 138639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138639.
Zhou, C., Chen, X., Zhang, W., Gao, F., Liu, G., 2020b. Physicochemical properties and en-
ergy production potential of agricultural residues in Anhui Province (Central
China). ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 18476–18483. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.0c05967.
Ziraba, A.K., Haregu, T.N., Mberu, B., 2016. A review and framework for understanding the
potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries.
Arch. Publ. Heal. 74, 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-016-0166-.