Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Green Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/green-chemical-engineering

Review

Review in life cycle assessment of biomass conversion through

pyrolysis-issues and recommendations
Zhaozhuo Yu a, Haoxiang Ma b, Xiangjun Liu a, Miao Wang a, Junqi Wang a, *
a
School of Human Settlements and Civil Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710049, China
b
Deep Sea Engineering Division, Institute of Deep-Sea Science and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sanya, 572000, China

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

LCA analyzing biomass conversion

through pyrolysis and corresponding key
methodological issues are reviewed.

Clarifications and methodological rec-
ommendations on the four steps of the
LCA process are provided.

The LCA results are discussed systemat-
ically, in which the global warming po-
tential attaches extra attention.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biomass, widespread and carbon-neutral energy, can provide electric energy and replace fossil fuel-derived
Life cycle assessment production. Pyrolysis is the main way of converting biomass to different bioenergy products with the con-
Pyrolysis sumption of material and energy, which will cause environmental impacts. To confirm the actual environmental
Global warming potential
impact of biomass conversion, life cycle assessment (LCA) is used for analyzing the process. Due to choosing
Agricultural residues
different LCA methods, the results for the same thing in different reports will show obvious fluctuation. This
Forest residues
Microalgae review is devoted to providing recommendations on how to handle methodological issues when analyzing LCA
study, by which researchers can better realize the similarities and differences in biomass conversion system. In
this review, multiple clarifications and methodological recommendations on the four steps of the LCA process
(including goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and interpretation) are
provided. Furthermore, the LCA results are discussed systematically, in which the global warming potential gets
extra attention. Meanwhile, different biomass feedstocks are divided into agricultural residues, forest residues,
and microalgae carefully. Finally, the current challenges and future framework of biomass conversion are
expounded in detail from the perspective of LCA.

1. Introduction and more people in recent years [1]. Green and diversified energy source
becomes the new favorite of numerous organizations and institutions.
Affected by climate change and Covid-19, the shortcomings of fossil Biomass, a widespread and renewable energy source, does not only
fuels (e.g., global warming and energy crisis) have been realized by more provide thermal and electric energy but also is transferred into multiple

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wjq@xjtu.edu.cn (J. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gce.2022.08.002
Received 10 April 2022; Received in revised form 23 July 2022; Accepted 7 August 2022
Available online 11 August 2022
2666-9528/© 2022 Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communication Co. Ltd. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Yu et al.
fine chemicals (e.g., furfural [2,3], γ-valerolactone [4], and levoglucosan
[5]), which is impossible for other renewable energies. Generally, the
transformation of biomass into high-value-added chemicals can process
by biological and chemical pathways. For biological pathways, mild
conditions and widespread application are excellent properties [6].
Nevertheless, the low efficiency of the biological pathway means that a
large amount of land, fund, and people are needed during the focus
utilization of biomass. With the tendency of unified management and
utilization, the chemical pathway with high efficiency is attracting more
and more attention. Among all chemical ways, pyrolysis, as a pathway
without extra chemicals addition and pollutant discharge, has been
researched for a long time [7]. Whereas, due to the unknown impact of
biomass pyrolysis on the environment, the trouble with pollution of
biomass pyrolysis is restricting the development of biomass upgrading.
Recently, life cycle assessment (LCA) is developed for analyzing the
actual influence of biomass pyrolysis on the environment [8]. Since
2019, the number of publications on LCA biomass each year has wit-
nessed the ever-increasing interest (based on the data searched from the
Web of Science). In Fig. 1, a number of LCA studies on pyrolysis of
different biomass feedstocks (e.g., microalgae and lignocellulose) are
presented. LCA is a comprehensive evaluation system to assess the effect
on the environment, energy, and resources in its whole life cycle [9].
However, studies with different LCA methods lead to inconsistency
among other studies and poor comparability. Limited by the researchers
and area where they are, the design and data sources of the LCA system
have remarkable differences [10]. Generally, the choice for biomass
feedstock, system boundary, analysis method, and the climate, location,
and society in different areas will make the LCA results change. For
different researchers, these factors are hard to reach an agreement [11,
12]. Thus, clarification and recommendations on key issues related to
LCA of biomass conversion are required. Hence, to construct a compre-
hensive and unified LCA consensus for biomass pyrolysis, a review of the
LCA analyzing biomass pyrolysis is urgently needed.
To provide some recommendations in identifying and analyzing
trends and singularities in the choices, this study systematically reviewed
the state of art of LCA analyzing the pyrolysis of different biomass
feedstock (lignocellulose and microalgae) (Fig. 2). Thirty-two LCA
studies on the pyrolysis of microalgae were accounted, while twenty-five
were tallied under lignocellulose pyrolysis. Section 2.1 describes the first
step (goal and scope definition) of LCA analysis and recommends sig-
nificant factors in this step. Section 2.2 describes the second step (life
cycle inventory) and recommends data collection. Section 2.3 expounds
on life cycle assessment methods (mainly global warming potential), and
section 2.4 is interpretation, the last step of LCA. Moreover, the global
warming potential results presented in different feedstocks (agricultural
residues, forest residues, and microalgae) are also compared and dis-
cussed in section 3. Finally, the viewpoint for LCA analyzing biomass
pyrolysis and recommendation for future research are also investigated.
Fig. 1. Number of publications until 2022 with topic keywords of “life cycle
assessment biomass”, “microalgae pyrolysis”, and “lignocellulose pyrolysis”
searched on Web of Science.
305
Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312
2. Key steps and recommendations
LCA, a tool quantifying the eco-profiles of the products and services,
is processed by the systematic utilization of inputs, products, emissions as
well as available databases. LCA analysis biomass pyrolysis follows four
steps including goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life
cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation of the results [13].
2.1. Key step 1: goal and scope definition
Goal and scope definition is the first step in the LCA analysis. Ac-
cording to ISO 14040 and 14044 [13–15], this step should clearly explain
the definition of the intended application, the research reason, the
intended audience, and so on. However, the existing standards and
guidelines are mainly focused on the definition of step but lack relevant
guidance [16,17]. Based on the reported LCA standards, guidelines, and
research, this section guides conducting key methodological choices
(system boundary, functional unit, and allocation) during the performing
goal and scope step.
2.1.1. System boundary
Defining system boundary plays an important role in the LCA anal-
ysis. Generally, biomass conversion is divided into different phases [12],
as shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, the input and output of each phase in the
generalized system boundaries are clearly explained. Stage 1 is a com-
bination of multiple steps, including plant growth, biomass collection,
biomass handling, and biomass transportation, from the local or farm
storage to the transit warehouse and final biorefinery [12,18–22]. Nor-
mally, stage 2 contains biomass pretreatment (shredding, grinding, dry-
ing, and acid washing), pyrolysis, and bio-oil conversion (if required,
conversion of bio-oil to intermediate or final product) [23]. Affected by
the requirement of pyrolysis, the biomass pretreatment will be changed
correspondingly. Because of the parameter difference in the temperature,
pressure, heating rate, and other factors, the energy requirement for each
LCA analysis system is unique [24]. For the central reaction zone, the
mass data and energy flows can be obtained from the raw experiment or
the model software, like Aspen Plus [25]. Stage 3 of LCA system
boundary covers the recycling and demolition stages. However, a few
studies have done a complete analysis from cradle to grave by including
all three phases in the system boundary. This phase is one of the gaps in
the current LCA literature.
2.1.2. Functional unit
In the goal and scope definition, choosing an appropriate functional
unit is an important issue. Functional unit is the standardized basis for
the calculation and the reference, and an inevitable part of the LCA re-
sults in comparison between various alternative scenarios or products
[28]. The choice of functional units is based on the final product and
scope definition of the system. Typical functional units usually are
divided into energy-based (e.g., 1 MJ/1 kWh/1 MW end products) and
mass-based functional units, (1 kg/1 ton feedstock/product) [28,55].
When the different scenarios and projects are compared, the utilization of
the same functional unit can provide a convenient platform. In Table 1,
the functional units chosen by different authors are summarized.
The functional units of area and distance are not frequently used in
biomass conversion systems, but will be chosen if the function of product is
easily shown. For example, in the biofuel production system, the functional
unit used by Zhang et al. [27] is 1 km, which is the distance traveled by a
light-duty passenger vehicle operated on fuels generated via fast pyrolysis.
For another functional unit (like Han et al. [28]), 1 MJ is used for LCA
analyzing light-duty passenger vehicles. However, the simple comparison
of 1 MJ biofuel in this scenario is hard to reflect the diversity of the fuels. In
addition, different reports should choose specific functional units to make
the results more understandable. When comparing global warming po-
tential results, “1 km” can be understood intuitively for end-users (con-
sumers or producers) to make the decision than “1 MJ”.
Z. Yu et al. Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312

Fig. 2. Life cycle assessment of different feedstock in pyrolysis process.

2.1.3. Allocation co-products.

A challenging issue in LCA is the selection of methods to allocate the In most published LCA studies (Table 1), the environmental impacts
environmental burden of a specific production system between products for the same product were accounted for using either economic allocation
and co-products. Four methods of handling the co-products surplus have alone, biophysical allocation, or both economic allocation and system
been introduced in the literature to tackle the environmental allocation expansion. With different allocation methods, the environmental impact
problem in LCA [56–58]. The first method is no allocation, it means that is different. Detail discussion is shown in Section 3. Although the ISO
the product takes the whole environmental burden in the production standard recommends to avoid allocation by expanding system bound-
system. The second method is economic allocation, which considers that aries, the way to identify close substitutes for co-product is still hard.
the distribution of the environmental impacts should base on the value of
each product. It is one of the most used allocation methods in LCA studies
2.2. Key step 2: LCI
[59]. However, the frequent error for LCA practitioners is applying the
partitioning based on the end-user price instead of the immediate value
LCI involves the creation of inventory inputs, outputs, and products.
after production [60]. The third method is biophysical allocation. This
For quantifying LCI of the bioenergy production systems through pyrol-
method is based on physicochemical properties such as mass and energy
ysis, the physical amounts of inputs (or energy/material consumption),
content between the co-products and the outputs. Energy allocation is
direct emissions (N2O, CO, CO2, CH4, NOx, NH3, etc.), and wastes in each
considered more accurate by some researchers. In addition, the
stage are calculated, which are based on the functional unit [62]. At the
energy-based allocation also can reflect the economic consideration since
same time, LCI analysis requires non-duplicated data collection, which is
the market value is mainly defined by its energy content [61]. Mass
a relatively important stage in the whole LCA analysis.
allocation is more stable overtime compared with economic allocation
Recommendation for data collection. Data collection affects the
which varies with the possible price fluctuations. The attributional
analysis of the whole LCA model directly, for which realistic, meaningful,
approach deals with co-product allocation by partitioning the environ-
and precise data is inevitable. Lacking unit process data is a major
mental impact related to the product using allocation factors based on
challenge for developing life cycle inventory in LCA. The source of data
mass, energy, or economic value. System expansion is the last method to
can be divided into primary and secondary, most data is available
evaluate the environmental impact of the co-product. The environmental
through commercial and public databases. However, the development of
burden can be calculated by subtracting avoided emission from total
databases still relies on some sources, such as laboratory tests, surveys,
emission minus to displace the co-products. When using the conse-
and literature reviews [9,63], which requires substantial labor and
quential approach, system expansion is an accurate way to handle the
financial investment. In addition, for some emerging industries or

306
Z. Yu et al.
Fig. 3. Generalized system boundary for an LCA analysis.
specialty materials, these databases are inadequate. To fulfill the gaps,
machine learning methods have been used to address data challenges in
LCA studies. Wernet [64], Song [65], and Zhu et al. [66] used artificial
neural network to estimate the life cycle impacts of chemicals based on
molecular structure information. Lee [67] and Romeiko et al. [68] esti-
mated the environmental impacts by using boosted regression tree. Zhao
et al. [69] developed a more flexible machine learning model (decision
tree) to get the needed information. Machine learning techniques can
overcome the challenge of data collection, and it also showed promising
applications in LCA studies.
2.3. Key step 3: LCIA
In the LCIA, environmental categories can be divided into mid-point
indicators and end-point indicators [70]. In general, mid-point categories
used for expressing life cycle environmental impacts include global
warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), ecotoxicity po-
tential (EP), eutrophication potential (ETP), water depletion potential
(WDP), fossil energy (FE), and so on. Through the integration of
mid-point categories, the results of endpoint categories can be obtained.
The end-point categories used in the reviewed studies contain human
health, ecosystem quality, and resource depletion. Nevertheless, most
researchers still use mid-point indicators to show the results, they believe
that mid-point categories are easy to describe the environmental impacts.
GWP is the most common impact used in LCA analysis.
Determination of global warming potential. GWP expresses the
cumulative radiative forcing value caused an emission of a unit mass of
given greenhouse gas over a defined time horizon, relative to the
equivalent value for CO2. The mathematical expression of GWP is pre-
sented as follows [71]:
R TH
TH ai ½Ci ðtÞdt 
GWP ¼ R 0TH (1)
i
0
ar ½Cr ðtÞdt 
“TH” is the chosen time horizon; “a” is the instantaneous radiative
307
Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312
forcing per unit mass increase in the atmosphere; “C(t)” is the time-
dependent atmospheric load of the released gas; “i” is the released gas;
“r” is the reference gas, carbon dioxide.
Direct greenhouse gas emissions, namely CO2, CH4, and N2O, are
generated in electricity/chemistry production based on the combustion
of fuels like coal, coke, crude-oil-based products, natural gas, peat, wood,
and other biomass fuels [72]. Greenhouse gas emission is highly
dependent on production process and the composition/quality of the fuel
[72]. In LCA analysis, the greenhouse gas emission can be calculated in
“kg CO2 equivalent”, the LCI results for each greenhouse gas are multi-
plied by their respective GWP. GWP value is sensitive to the chosen time
horizon, especially for short-lived greenhouse gas (Table 2). GWP in LCA
analysis is usually calculated at a time horizon of 100 years [73]. How-
ever, some studies considering that the temporal scale of greenhouse gas
emissions should be 20 years, which is in agreement with the life span of
infrastructure [74,75].
2.4. Key step 4: interpretation
Interpretation of results is constructed by identification of significant
issues, completeness, sensitivity, and consistency checks, and in the same
system, the change of any stage will affect the LCA results. To make the
LCA analysis more reasonable and realistic, sensitivity analysis is used
widely [77]. ISO standard prescribes that sensitivity analysis should
focus on the most significant issues to determine the influence of varia-
tions in assumptions, methods, and data [14,15,78]. Sensitivity analysis
determines how different values of an independent variable affect a
dependent variable under a given set of assumptions [78,79]. The in-
dependent variables in LCA can be parameter value, allocation rule,
system boundary, model choice, or process choice. Dependent variables
may be output parameter values (continuous) or priorities between al-
ternatives in a comparative study. Different types of sensitivity analysis
with different combinations of input and output variables are shown in
Table 3 [80].
Information about the sensitivity of the model outcomes provides
Z. Yu et al. Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312

Table 1
Summary of the LCA of bioenergy production from fast pyrolysis of different types of biomass feedstocks.
Feedstock T/ C End products FU Allocation Impact Impact categories Software Ref.
method method utilized

Agricultural residues
Corn stover 500 Bio gasoline 1 ha System expansion EPA GWPa GREET [26]
Corn stover – Bio gasoline, 1 km Mass TRACI GWP, APb, EPc, ETPd, FEe, ODPf, SimaPro [27]
biodiesel CGg, NCGh, RPEi, SMj
Corn stover 450–550 Bio gasoline 1 MJ Energy and – GWP GREET [28]
system expansion
Corn stover 850 Biofuel 1 MJ System expansion – GWP, NREk GREET [29]
Corn stover 450 Biochar 1 ton System expansion – GWP Microsoft [30]
Excel
Yard waste (brush, leaves, and 450 Biochar 1 ton System expansion – GWP Microsoft [30]
grass clippings) Excel
Cotton straw 500 Chemical 1 MJ Energy TRACI GWP, AP, EP, ETP, ODP, CG, NCG, GaBi [18]
POFp, RPE, RDq
Straw – Biogas 1 ton – Eco- HHl, EQm, RSn SimaPro [31]
indicator
99
Various straw – Biochar 1 ton Economic and – GWP – [32]
system expansion
Barley straw and wheat straw 500 Renewable diesel 1 MJ Energy EPA GWP, NERo GREET [20]
Switchgrass 450 Biochar 1 ton System expansion – GWP Microsoft [30]
Excel
Switchgrass – Bioenergy 1 MJ System expansion – GWP – [33]
Miscanthus/short rotation – Biochar 1 ton System expansion – GWP – [32]
coppice or forestry
Sugar beet pulp 550 Furfural 1 ton – CML GWP OpenLCA [34]
Forest residues
Short rotation poplar 500 Bio gasoline, 1 MJ Mass and CML GWP, ODP, AP, EP, CEDs SimaPro [35]
biodiesel, and economic
biochar
Poplar 520 Gasoline/diesel 1 MJ Energy CML AD, AP, EP, GWP, CED, FE SimaPro [36]
Hybrid poplar 520 Biodiesel & 1L System expansion – GWP, Eco-indicator 99 – [37]
gasoline
Forest residues, hybrid willow, – Biopower 1000 MJ – – GWP, WC, FE SimaPro [38]
switchgrass, and Miscanthus
Forest residues, hybrid willow, – Biofuel 1000 MJ – – GWP, WC, FE SimaPro [38]
switchgrass, and Miscanthus
Switchgrass and pine residues 500 Gasoline and diesel 1 MJ Energy and – GWP – [39]
system expansion
Wood waste – Biochar 1 ton System expansion – GWP – [40]
Chips from branches and tops 500 Renewable diesel 1 MJ Energy EPA GWP, NER GREET [20]
Forest residue 400–500 Bio gasoline and 1 km – EPA GWP, NEVt SimaPro [41]
biodiesel
Mixed wood 500 Chemicals 1 kg System expansion TRACI GWP, ODP, AP, SM, ETP, CG, SimaPro [21]
NCG, RPE, EP
Forest residues, hybrid willow, – Pellet 1000 MJ – – GWP, FE, WC SimaPro [38]
switchgrass, and Miscanthus
Forest residue 500 Bio-oil 1 MJ Mass – GWP SimaPro [42]
Waste wood 500 Electricity 1 kWh System expansion – GWP SimaPro [43]
Southern pine trees 400–550 Bio-oil 1 MJ – – GWP, AP, RPE, ETP, SM, ODP SimaPro [19]
Pine residues 500 Bio-oil 1 MJ Mass – GWP GREET [44]
Pine residues 500 Bio-oil 1 MJ Energy – GWP GREET [45]
Empty fruit bunch 450 Bio-oil 1 kg – – GWP, AP, ETP, POF GREET [46]
Eucalyptus tree 500 Bio-oil 1 MJ System expansion CML GWP, ADu, TAv, ETP, ODP, HTw, SimaPro [47]
FWAEx, MAEy, TEz, POaa
American wood fiber 480–500 Bio-oil 1 MJ System expansion – GWP SimaPro [48]
Willow 500 CH4 1 GJ Energy and – GWP Excel [49]
system expansion
Microalgae
Nannochloropsis sp. 550 Bio-oil and bio-gas 1 MJ Mass – GWP – [50]
Scenedesmus dimorphus 400 Bio-oil 1 MJ – – GWP, NER GREET [51]
Spirulina, Chlorella, and 400–500 Aviation fuel 1 MJ Energy – GWP GREET [52]
Isochrysis
T. chui 550 Electricity 1 MWh Economic CML GWP, AD, LTUab, WRDac, ETP, SimaPro [53]
AD, ECTad, CG, NCG, PCSae, ODP,
IRaf, RPE
T. chui 550 Biochar 1t Economic CML GWP, AD, LTUab, WRDac, ETP, SimaPro [53]
AD, ECTad, CG, NCG, HTae, PCSae,
ODP, IRaf, RPE
(continued on next page)

308
Z. Yu et al. Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312

Table 1 (continued )
Feedstock T/ C End products FU Allocation Impact Impact categories Software Ref.
method method utilized

T. chui 550 Biodiesel 1 GJ Economic CML GWP, AD, LTUab, WRDac, ETP, SimaPro [53]
AD, ECTad, CG, NCG, HTae, PCSae,
ODP, IRaf, RPE
Chlorella vulgaris 500 Biofuel 1 ha – – GWP, NER – [54]

GWPa: Global warming potential; APb: Acidification potential; EPc: Ecotoxicity potential; ETPd: Eutrophication potential; FEe: Fossil energy; ODPf: Ozone depletion
potential; CGg: Carcinogenic; NCGh: Non-carcinogenic; RPEi: Respiratory effects; SMj: Smog; NREk: Non-renewable energy; HHl: Human health; EQm: Ecosystem quality;
RSn: Resources; NERo: Net energy ratio; POFp: Photochemical ozone formation; RDq: Resource depletion; WCr: Water consumption; CEDs: Cumulative energy demand;
NEVt: Net energy value; ADu: Abiotic depletion; TAv: Terrestrial acidification; HTw: Human toxicity; FWAEx: Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity; MAEy: Marine aquatic
ecotoxicity; TEz: Terrestrial ecotoxicity; POaa: Photochemical oxidation; LTUab: Land transformation and use; WRDac: Water resource depletion; ECTad: Eco-toxicity;
PCSae: Photochemical smog; IRaf: Ionising radiation.
-: No specified.

Table 2 product yields), how they were operated (feedstocks, temperature, and
GWP values for CO2, CH4, and N2O for time horizons of 20, 100, and 500 years heating rate), and LCA model boundaries or decisions. In addition, the
[76]. handling of co-products is also a controversial problem in LCA. System
20 years 100 years 500 years expansion provides credits for avoided products, thus changing the GWP.
CO2 1 1 1
For example, when the biochar is used as fertilizer in system expansion,
CH4 72 25 7.6 the value of GWP is different (e.g., 1570 CO2 eq/dry ton without system
N2O 289 298 153 expansion [81], 1000 to 1200 CO2 eq/dry ton [32], and 1250 CO2
eq/dry ton [40] with system expansion). Additionally, different use of
same co-product can change the GWP value. Biochar used for energy
useful information to assess the reliability of LCA-based decisions and to
combustion (910 CO2 eq/dry ton) had a higher impact than soil
guide future research toward reducing uncertainty. Furthermore, when
amendment (1250 CO2 eq/dry ton) [40].
sensitivity analysis is performed, taking a step back and collecting data
The GWP results of bio-oil (1 MJ) from different biomass (agricultural
for some crucial points are needed. However, if some decisions and re-
residues, forest residues, and microalgae) are shown in Fig. 4. The range
sults are crucial for the study based on sensitivity analysis, re-evaluation
in results is firstly due to the source of the feedstock, their energy de-
and re-analysis will be needed. Therefore, sensitivity analysis plays an
mand, and bio-oil yield. As in the case of biochar, LCA modeling choices
important role in the LCA model during data collection and boundary
are also important. There was a range of LCA modeling boundaries used
determination.
in various studies, with some using cradle to gate approach, and others
using cradle to grave approach. As shown in Fig. 4, the order of the GWP
3. Comparison of environmental impact results of different
average is as follows: forest residues < agricultural
feedstock
residues < microalgae. Generally, forest residues are the main feedstock
for electricity generation, and agricultural residues are used for bio-
Table 1 shows the LCIA methods selected by the authors, in which
energy products. A relatively lower GWP impact in the research about
mid-point categories are most commonly used. Since GWP is the most
forest residues was reported by Moghaddam et al. [49], in which CH4 was
well-known impact value and is included in all reviewed articles, it will
produced from willow residues. The reason for lower GWP could be
be discussed in detail.
attributed to the replacement of fossil coal by co-product biochar. For
When biochar produced from pyrolysis, the net GWP ranges from
microalgae, the highest GWP average could be ascribed to the relatively
442 to 1570 CO2 eq/dry ton [30,32,33,40,81]. The large range in net
high energy requirement among all biomass feedstocks. For the utiliza-
GWP values is due to the diversity in technologies (pyrolysis types and
tion of microalgae, only the GWP results reported by Silva et al. [82] are
at par with the other biomass. To date, a limited amount of studies was
Table 3 found to investigate the environmental impacts of microalgae pyrolysis,
Tools available in sensitivity analysis in LCA. by which the review of microalgae pyrolysis should be further improved
Input variable Output variable in the future. In addition, some of the reported GWP benefits were based
on modeling or laboratory scale [18,78] and the benefits may not scale
Parameter value Priority
up with commercial plants. Although the environmental impact of some
Parameter Tornado diagrams Ratio sensitivity processes is generally positive, the commercialization of pyrolysis tech-
value One-way sensitivity analysis analysis
Critical error factor
nologies to produce fuels and chemicals still depends on the production
Allocation rule Scenario analysis Scenario analysis cost and competitiveness with conventional fossil sources.
Factorial design þ multivariate Apart from the GWP impact, the results of other impact categories
analysis were summarized and shown in Table 4 as well. In Table 4, only a few
Boundary Scenario analysis Scenario analysis
studies (including Wang, Zhang, Heidari, and Grierson et al. [18,21,27,
Factorial design þ multivariate
analysis 47,53] have reported the comprehensive impacts categories of various
Model Scenario analysis Scenario analysis products. In addition, these LCA studies are mainly focusing on forest
Factorial design þ multivariate residue and agricultural residue. Thus, the comprehensive assessment of
analysis microalgae pyrolysis could be attracted more attention in future research.
Process Scenario analysis Scenario analysis
Factorial design þ multivariate
Moreover, the technical, economic, and environmental assessments of
analysis the extracted products (e.g., sugars, phenols, and bio-oil-based acids)
from biomass pyrolysis should be get more attention in future study.

309
Z. Yu et al. Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312

Fig. 4. The comparative GWP impacts of the LCA studies on (a) three different feedstocks using a functional unit of 1 MJenergy, (b) microalgae, (c) forest residues, and
(d) agricultural residues.

Table 4
The various environmental impacts of pyrolysis process in different feedstock.
Biomass FU Environmental impacts* Ref.
feedstock
ODP/(kg CFC- FE/(MJ/ SM/(kg AP/(mol ETP/(kg CG/(CTUh) NCG/ RPE/(kg PM EP/ POF/(kg
11eq/FU) FU) O3eq H þeq/FU) Neq/FU) (CTUh) 10eq/FU) (CTUe) O3eq/FU)
/FU)

Corn stover 1 MJ 6.07  107 0.23 0.071 0.27 0.16 1.92  107 6.82  107 6.10  104 0.42 – [27]
Miscanthus 1 MJ 8.91  107 – – 0.019 0.0129 5.76  107 9.46  107 4.83  103 24.76 0.22 [38]
Sugar beet 1 ton – 678.98 – – – – – – – – [34]
pulp
Short 1 ton 1.43  104 – – 5.33 (SO2) 1.19 – – – – – [35]
rotation (PO3
4 )
poplar
Forest 1 kg 1.05  106 34.8 0.243 1.38 1.21 1.17  107 5.16  108 3.7  103 2.38 – [21]
residue
Empty fruit 1 kg – – – 0.092 kg 0.0075 – – – 0.0109 0.0006 [46]
bunch
9 10
Microalgae 1 MJ – 605.4 kg 24.9 – 1.1 2  10 2  10 3.1 (PM 2.5) 0.07 – [53]

Environmental impacts legend: ODP: Ozone depletion potential; FE: Fossil energy; SM: Smog; AP: Acidification potential; ETP: Eutrophication potential; CG: Carci-
nogenic; NCG: Non-carcinogenic; RPE: Respiratory effects; EP: Ecotoxicity potential; POF: Photochemical ozone formation.

4. Conclusions and future works
Biomass is a promising replacement for fossil-based fuels through the
production of useful bioenergy products using pyrolysis process. In this
review, the studies about LCA analyzing biomass conversion through
pyrolysis are systemically discussed, and the key methodological issues
for LCA analysis are clarified as well. With the LCA study, the production
of various products from different biomass feedstock (forest residues,
agricultural wastes, and microalgae) using the pyrolysis conversion
process has been analyzed. Compared with other biomass feedstock,
forest residue is more environmentally friendly in GWP emission. In LCA
analysis, multiple outputs often make the system complex, and the
application of LCA to biomass pyrolysis requires in-depth research to
understand the underlying processes and to predict or measure the
variation in the emissions.
Current reports about LCA analyzing biomass pyrolysis are concen-
trating on the assessment of GWP, but less on investigating other envi-
ronmental impact categories. For the comprehensive environmental
assessment of biomass conversion system, the work with comprehensive
environmental assessment should be attached more attention. In
addition, LCA of pyrolysis process to produce bio-oil has been done
extensively, but few researches include LCA of upgrading process to
produce value-added products from bio-oil.
For future studies, the following suggestions should be considered
specially. Firstly, the unification of functional units is a key way to
measure the effect of different reports on the environment; Secondly, the
LCA analysis on the pyrolysis of microalgae is a potential research point;
Finally, the value-added products from biomass pyrolysis should be got
more attention.
Declaration of competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 22108221) and the Shaanxi Natural Science Foundation

310
Z. Yu et al. Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312

(2021JQ-028). The authors wish to thank Ms. Janet Calhoun (The Ohio [32] J. Hammond, S. Shackley, S. Sohi, P. Brownsort, Prospective life cycle carbon
abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK, Energy Pol. 39 (2011)
State University) for critical review.
2646–2655.
[33] J.L. Gaunt, J. Lehmann, Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar
References sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008)
4152–4158.
[34] M.A. Thompson, A. Mohajeri, A. Mirkouei, Comparison of pyrolysis and hydrolysis
[1] M. Thakur, E.A. Boudewijns, G.R. Babu, O.C.P. van Schayck, Biomass use and
processes for furfural production from sugar beet pulp: a case study in southern
Covid-19: a novel concern, Environ. Res. 186 (2020) 109586.
Idaho, USA, J. Clean. Prod. 311 (2021) 127695.
[2] C.B.T.L. Lee, T.Y. Wu, A review on solvent systems for furfural production from
[35] D. Iribarren, J.F. Peters, J. Dufour, Life cycle assessment of transportation fuels from
lignocellulosic biomass, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 137 (2021) 110172.
biomass pyrolysis, Fuel 97 (2012) 812–821.
[3] Y. Zhao, K.F. Lu, H. Xu, L.J. Zhu, S.R. Wang, A critical review of recent advances in
[36] J.F. Peters, D. Iribarren, J. Dufour, Simulation and life cycle assessment of biofuel
the production of furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural from lignocellulosic
production via fast pyrolysis and hydroupgrading, Fuel 139 (2015) 441–456.
biomass through homogeneous catalytic hydrothermal conversion, Renew. Sustain.
[37] B.H. Gebreslassie, M. Slivinsky, B.L. Wang, F.Q. You, Life cycle optimization for
Energy Rev. 139 (2021) 110706.
sustainable design and operations of hydrocarbon biorefinery via fast pyrolysis,
[4] B. Zada, R. Zhu, B. Wang, J. Liu, J. Deng, Y. Fu, A practical and concise
hydrotreating, and hydrocracking, Comput. Chem. Eng. 50 (2013) 71–91.
homogeneous nickel catalyst for efficient solvent-free synthesis of γ-valerolactone,
[38] Y.X. Wang, J.X. Wang, X.F. Zhang, S. Grushecky, Environmental and economic
Green Chem. 22 (2020) 3427–3432.
assessments and uncertainties of multiple lignocellulosic biomass utilization for
[5] J.Q. Wang, Q. Wei, J.L. Zheng, M.Q. Zhu, Effect of pyrolysis conditions on
bioenergy products: case studies, Energies 13 (2020) 6277.
levoglucosan yield from cotton straw and optimization of levoglucosan extraction
[39] K. Lan, L. Ou, S. Park, S.S. Kelley, Y. Yao, Life cycle analysis of decentralized
from bio-oil, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 122 (2016) 294–303.
preprocessing systems for fast pyrolysis biorefineries with blended feedstocks in the
[6] R. Sankaran, R.A.P. Cruz, H. Pakalapati, P.L. Show, T.C. Ling, W.H. Chen, Y. Tao,
southeastern United States, Energy Technol. 8 (2020) 1900850.
Recent advances in the pretreatment of microalgal and lignocellulosic biomass: a
[40] R. Ibarrola, S. Shackley, J. Hammond, Pyrolysis biochar systems for recovering
comprehensive review, Bioresour. Technol. 298 (2020) 122476.
biodegradable materials: a life cycle carbon assessment, Waste Manage. 32 (2012)
[7] T. Kan, V. Strezov, T.J. Evans, Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of product
859–868.
properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57
[41] D.D. Hsu, Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel produced via fast pyrolysis
(2016) 1126–1140.
and hydroprocessing, Biomass Bioenergy 45 (2012) 41–47.
[8] P. Roy, G. Dias, Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bioenergy sector: a
[42] D.L. van Schalkwyk, M. Mandegari, S. Farzad, J.F. Gorgens, Techno-economic
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77 (2017) 59–69.
and environmental analysis of bio-oil production from forest residues via non-
[9] J.B. Guinee, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici,
catalytic and catalytic pyrolysis processes, Energy Convers. Manag. 213 (2020)
T. Ekvall, T. Rydberg, Life cycle assessment: past, present, and futures, Environ. Sci.
112815.
Technol. 45 (2011) 90–96.
[43] J.Q. Fan, T.N. Kalnes, M. Alward, J. Klinger, A. Sadehvandi, D.R. Shonnard, Life
[10] S. Ahlgren, A. Bjorklund, A. Ekman, H. Karlsson, J. Berlin, P. Borjesson, T. Ekvall,
cycle assessment of electricity generation using fast pyrolysis bio-oil, Renew.
G. Finnveden, M. Janssen, I. Strid, Review of methodological choices in LCA of
Energy 36 (2011) 632–641.
biorefinery systems—key issues and recommendations, Biofuel. Bioprod. Bior. 9
[44] K. Lan, L.W. Ou, S. Park, S.S. Kelley, P. Nepal, H. Kwon, H. Cai, Y. Yao, Dynamic
(2015) 606–619.
life-cycle carbon analysis for fast pyrolysis biofuel produced from pine residues:
[11] M. Patel, X.L. Zhang, A. Kumar, Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on
implications of carbon temporal effects, Biotechnol. Biofuels 14 (2021) 191.
lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review, Renew.
[45] L.W. Ou, H. Cai, Dynamic life-cycle analysis of fast pyrolysis biorefineries: impacts
Sustain. Energy Rev. 53 (2016) 1486–1499.
of feedstock moisture content and particle size, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8 (2020)
[12] A. Ubando, D.R. Rivera, W.H. Chen, A.B. Culaba, A comprehensive review of life
6211–6221.
cycle assessment (LCA) of microalgal and lignocellulosic bioenergy products from
[46] Y.H. Chan, R.R. Tan, S. Yusup, H.L. Lam, A.T. Quitain, Comparative life cycle
thermochemical processes, Bioresour. Technol. 291 (2019) 121837.
assessment (LCA) of bio-oil production from fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal
[13] S.A.D. Silveira, International organization for standardization, Aust. Dent. J. 30
liquefaction of oil palm empty fruit bunch (EFB), Clean Technol. Envir. 18 (2016)
(1985) 134–135.
1759–1768.
[14] ISO 14044, International Organization of Standardization. Environmental
[47] A. Heidari, E. Khaki, H. Younesi, H.Y.R. Lu, Evaluation of fast and slow pyrolysis
management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, 2006.
methods for bio-oil and activated carbon production from eucalyptus wastes using a
[15] ISO 14046, International Standard Organization. Environmental management,
life cycle assessment approach, J. Clean. Prod. 241 (2019) 118394.
Water footprint. Principles, requirements and guidelines, 2014.
[48] Y. Sorunmu, P. Billen, S.E. Elangovan, D. Santosa, S. Spatari, Life-cycle assessment
[16] K. Chomkhamsri, M.A. Wolf, R. Pant, International reference life cycle data system
of alternative pyrolysis-based transport fuels: implications of upgrading technology,
(ILCD), in: M. Finkbeiner (Ed.), Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management,
scale, and hydrogen requirement, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (2018) 10001–10010.
Springer, Dordrecht, 2011, pp. 107–117.
[49] E.A. Moghaddam, N. Ericsson, P.A. Hansson, A. Nordberg, Exploring the potential
[17] P.A. Specification. PAS 2050–Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle
for biomethane production by willow pyrolysis using life cycle assessment
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services, British Standards Institution,
methodology, Energy Sustain. Soc. 9 (2019) 6.
London, 2008.
[50] H.H. Khoo, C.Y. Koh, M.S. Shaik, P.N. Sharratt, Bioenergy co-products derived from
[18] J.Q. Wang, S.M. You, Z.M. Lu, R. Chen, F.Q. Xu, Life cycle assessment of bio-based
microalgae biomass via thermochemical conversion—life cycle energy balances and
levoglucosan production from cotton straw through fast pyrolysis, Bioresour.
CO2 emissions, Bioresour. Technol. 143 (2013) 298–307.
Technol. 307 (2020) 123179.
[51] E.P. Bennion, D.M. Ginosar, J. Moses, F. Agblevor, J.C. Quinn, Lifecycle assessment
[19] P. Steele, M.E. Puettmann, V.K. Penmetsa, J.E. Cooper, Life-cycle assessment of
of microalgae to biofuel: comparison of thermochemical processing pathways, Appl.
pyrolysis bio-oil production, For. Prod. J. 62 (2012) 326–334.
Energy 154 (2015) 1062–1071.
[20] A. Wong, H. Zhang, A. Kumar, Life cycle assessment of renewable diesel production
[52] F. Guo, X. Wang, X.Y. Yang, Potential pyrolysis pathway assessment for microalgae-
from lignocellulosic biomass, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (2016) 1404–1424.
based aviation fuel based on energy conversion efficiency and life cycle, Energy
[21] Y.A. Zhang, G.P. Hu, R.C. Brown, Life cycle assessment of commodity chemical
Convers. Manag. 132 (2017) 272–280.
production from forest residue via fast pyrolysis, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (2014)
[53] S. Grierson, V. Strezov, J. Bengtsson, Life cycle assessment of a microalgae biomass
1371–1381.
cultivation, bio-oil extraction and pyrolysis processing regime, Algal Res. 2 (2013)
[22] A. Ringsred, S. van Dyk, J. Saddler, Life-cycle analysis of drop-in biojet fuel
299–311.
produced from British Columbia forest residues and wood pellets via fast-pyrolysis,
[54] N. Pragya, K.K. Pandey, Life cycle assessment of green diesel production from
Appl. Energy 287 (2021) 116587.
microalgae, Renew. Energy 86 (2016) 623–632.
[23] V. Dhyani, T. Bhaskar, A comprehensive review on the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
[55] M. Martin-Gamboa, P. Marques, F. Freire, L. Arroja, A.C. Dias, Life cycle assessment
biomass, Renew. Energy 129 (2018) 695–716.
of biomass pellets: a review of methodological choices and results, Renew. Sustain.
[24] T.Y.A. Fahmy, Y. Fahmy, F. Mobarak, M. El-Sakhawy, R.E. Abou-Zeid, Biomass
Energy Rev. 133 (2020) 110278.
pyrolysis: past, present, and future, Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22 (2020) 17–32.
[56] D.L. Schrijvers, P. Loubet, G. Sonnemann, Developing a systematic framework for
[25] A.G. Adeniyi, J.O. Ighalo, M.K. Amosa, Modelling and simulation of banana (Musa
consistent allocation in LCA, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (2016) 976–993.
spp.) waste pyrolysis for bio-oil production, Biofuels 12 (2021) 879–883.
[57] T. Wardenaar, T. van Ruijven, A.M. Beltran, K. Vad, J. Guinee, R. Heijungs,
[26] N. Kauffman, D. Hayes, R. Brown, A life cycle assessment of advanced biofuel
Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the
production from a hectare of corn, Fuel 90 (2011) 3306–3314.
consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
[27] Y.N. Zhang, G.P. Hu, R.C. Brown, Life cycle assessment of the production of
17 (2012) 1059–1067.
hydrogen and transportation fuels from corn stover via fast pyrolysis, Environ. Res.
[58] C. Cederberg, M. Stadig, System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of
Lett. 8 (2013) 025001.
milk and beef production, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (2003) 350–356.
[28] J. Han, A. Elgowainy, J.B. Dunn, M.Q. Wang, Life cycle analysis of fuel production
[59] T.L.T. Nguyen, J.E. Hermansen, System expansion for handling co-products in LCA
from fast pyrolysis of biomass, Bioresour. Technol. 133 (2013) 421–428.
of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol
[29] Q. Dang, C.J. Yu, Z.Y. Luo, Environmental life cycle assessment of bio-fuel production
production, Appl. Energy 89 (2012) 254–261.
via fast pyrolysis of corn stover and hydroprocessing, Fuel 131 (2014) 36–42.
[60] F. Ardente, M. Cellura, Economic allocation in life cycle assessment: the state of the
[30] K.G. Roberts, B.A. Gloy, S. Joseph, N.R. Scott, J. Lehmann, Life cycle assessment of
art and discussion of examples, J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (2012) 387–398.
biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential,
[61] L. Luo, E. van der Voet, G. Huppes, H.A.U. de Haes, Allocation issues in LCA
Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 827–833.
methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol, Int. J. Life Cycle
[31] Q.L. Wang, W. Li, X. Gao, S.J. Li, Life cycle assessment on biogas production from
Assess. 14 (2009) 529–539.
straw and its sensitivity analysis, Bioresour. Technol. 201 (2016) 208–214.

311
Z. Yu et al.
[62] S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe. Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IGES, Hayama, 2006.
[63] S. Hellweg, L.M.I. Canals, Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life
cycle assessment, Science 344 (2014) 1109–1113.
[64] G. Wernet, S. Hellweg, U. Fischer, S. Papadokonstantakis, K. Hungerbuhler,
Molecular-structure-based models of chemical inventories using neural networks,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008) 6717–6722.
[65] R.S. Song, A.A. Keller, S. Suh, Rapid life-cycle impact screening using artificial
neural networks, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017) 10777–10785.
[66] X.Z. Zhu, C.H. Ho, X.N. Wang, Application of life cycle assessment and machine
learning for high-throughput screening of green chemical substitutes, ACS Sustain.
Chem. Eng. 8 (2020) 11141–11151.
[67] E.K. Lee, W.J. Zhang, X.S. Zhang, P.R. Adler, S. Lin, B.J. Feingold, H.A. Khwaja,
X.X. Romeiko, Projecting life-cycle environmental impacts of corn production in the
US Midwest under future climate scenarios using a machine learning approach, Sci.
Total Environ. 714 (2020) 136697.
[68] X.X. Romeiko, E.K. Lee, Y. Sorunmu, X.S. Zhang, Spatially and temporally explicit
life cycle environmental impacts of soybean production in the US Midwest, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 54 (2020) 4758–4768.
[69] B. Zhao, C. Shuai, P. Hou, S. Qu, M. Xu, Estimation of unit process data for life cycle
assessment using a decision tree-based approach, Environ. Sci. Technol. 55 (2021)
8439–8446.
[70] S. Muench, E. Guenther, A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments,
Appl. Energy 112 (2013) 257–273.
[71] A. Levasseur, P. Lesage, M. Margni, L. Deschenes, R. Samson, Considering time in
LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 3169–3174.
[72] S. Soimakallio, J. Kiviluoma, L. Saikku, The complexity and challenges of
determining GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from grid electricity consumption
312
Green Chemical Engineering 3 (2022) 304–312
and conservation in LCA (life cycle assessment)—a methodological review, Energy
36 (2011) 6705–6713.
[73] P.T. Brown, K. Caldeira, Greater future global warming inferred from Earth's recent
energy budget, Nature 552 (2017) 45–50.
[74] M.A. Cusenza, S. Longo, F. Guarino, M. Cellura, Energy and environmental
assessment of residual bio-wastes management strategies, J. Clean. Prod. 285
(2021) 124815.
[75] J.M. Aberilla, A. Gallego-Schmid, A. Azapagic, Environmental sustainability of
small-scale biomass power technologies for agricultural communities in developing
countries, Renew. Energy 141 (2019) 493–506.
[76] P. Forster, V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey,
J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, Changes in atmospheric constituents and
in radiative forcing, in: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis,
K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis, Cmbridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New
York, 2007, pp. 131–234.
[77] Z.Z. Zhou, Y.J. Tang, Y. Chi, M.J. Ni, A. Buekens, Waste-to-energy: a review of life
cycle assessment and its extension methods, Waste Manag. Res. 36 (2018) 3–16.
[78] J.Q. Wang, S.I. Okopi, H.X. Ma, M. Wang, R. Chen, W.Y. Tian, F.Q. Xu, Life cycle
assessment of the integration of anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis for treatment of
municipal solid waste, Bioresour. Technol. 338 (2021) 125486.
[79] USEPA, USEPA Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC, 1995.
[80] A.E. Bjorklund, Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 7 (2002) 64–72.
[81] P. Brassard, J. Palacios, S. Godbout, J.P. Larouche, V. Raghavan, CSBE/SCGAB 2016
Annual Conference, 2016.
[82] M.C. Silva, F.A. Ferreira, P.A. Dias, M. Costa, A comparison between microalgae
virtual biorefinery arrangements for bio-oil production based on lab-scale results,
J. Clean. Prod. (2016) 58–67.