pubs.acs.

org/IECR Article

Sustainability Multidimensional Optimization of Multiproduct

Biorefineries: The Case Study in a Sub-Saharan African Country
Tito Francisco Ianda,* Ricardo de Araújo Kalid, Lucas Bonfim-Rocha, Fernando Luiz Pellegrini Pessoa,
Diego Lima Medeiros, Filipe Oliveira, and Dayvid Souza Santos
Cite This: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: Multiproduct biorefineries are promising industries

to diversify the economy of developing countries. This work
proposes a sustainability multidimensional optimization model for
multiproduct biorefineries to evaluate the technical, economic,
Downloaded via Tito Ianda on October 20, 2023 at 11:03:24 (UTC).

environmental, and social viability and support a multicriteria

decision-making. The proposed model was used to evaluate the
implementation of new biorefineries in Guinea-Bissau for bunches
of fresh palm fruits (PF) and peeled castor seeds (CS) processing
into higher added value products. The PF products evaluated in
this study were crude oil, refined oil, stearin, and kernel oil, while
those of CS were crude oil, refined oil, and stearin. The installation
of seven biorefineries in Guinea-Bissau was defined to supply regional markets with these products. Mathematical programming was
implemented from optimization models to maximize gross profit and job generation and minimize the transported distances of raw
materials and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The biorefineries were subject to water and energy supply constraints, wastewater
management, and raw material availability and demand. The data were obtained from secondary sources and compiled in Python
programming language. To increase the robustness of the model, an uncertainty evaluation was conducted using Monte Carlo
simulation. An availability of 3.66 × 105 ton a year of PF and 1.8 × 104 tons a year of CS was estimated in the base scenario. The
model solution indicated the quantity of each product to be produced in the biorefineries to achieve a gross profit of 5.13 × 108 US$
in the base scenario, while it achieved 7.69 × 108 US$ in the optimized scenario for profit maximization. GHG emissions in the base
scenario were 1.75 × 108 kg CO2eq, while these were 9.60 × 107 kg CO2eq in the optimized scenario. Job generation was 1.24 × 105
in the base scenario and 1.80 × 105 in the optimized scenario. There was a trade-off between profit maximization and GHG
emissions minimization. The profit maximization increased GHG emissions by 150%, while by minimizing GHG emissions the gross
profit decreased by 63%. Carbon offsetting for partial (only the additional emission) and total GHG emissions in the profit
maximization scenario was also simulated at 0.03 US$ (kg of CO2)−1 and 0.10 US$ (kg of CO2)−1, which indicated a gross profit
increase up to 3.12%. In this regard, it is feasible to offset the total GHG emissions to enable the profit maximization in the evaluated
biorefineries.

1. INTRODUCTION algae into cellulosic biomass to produce bioenergy from the

Biorefineries are agro-industrial installations that integrate
biomass processing equipment and processes into products for
different segments (e.g., chemical, pharmaceutical, cosmetics,
food).1Biorefineries have evolved since the 1980s.2 The first
generation of biorefineries focuses on processing food crops,
such as sugar cane, cassava, soy, maize, canola, and palm. The
second generation of biorefineries started in the 2000s, which
used nonedible raw materials such as woody biomass, sugar
cane bagasse, urban waste, and biomaterials. The third
generation of biorefineries started in 2015, using microalgae
and macroalgae to produce biofuel and bioproducts (pigments,
oil essences, proteins, and carbohydrates).2,3 Finally, the fourth
generation of biorefineries began in 2017, which uses
genetically modified biomass, such as the incorporation of
overexpression of metabolites and enzymes.2
In the conception of the International Energy Agency (IEA),
biorefinery is a system of sustainable biomass processing into a
spectrum of marketable products, which involve proteins for
human consumption, feed, biomaterials, chemical bioproducts,
and bioenergy (liquid biofuels, biogas, and heat).4 A future
definition that can still be attributed to biorefinery includes
processes that use biomass from living organisms to convert
Received: August 1, 2023
Revised: October 7, 2023
Accepted: October 9, 2023

© XXXX American Chemical Society https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632

A Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
waste products from nonbiogenic sources, including CO2 from
the combustion of fossil fuels.4 Biorefineries use different
sources of raw materials and organic biomass of agricultural,
forestry, aquaculture, agricultural, and industrial organic waste,
which include wood, organic waste from animals and plants,
forestry waste, and marine biomass (macroalgae and micro-
algae). They also employ different technological routes for
processing raw materials.3,5 The scope of production of various
products from the processing of raw materials makes the
modular biorefinery important to serve the national market in
Guinea-Bissau with high added value inputs for applications in
the cosmetics, food, and pharmaceutical industries in this
country.
Biorefineries are classified according to the sources of raw
materials and biomass used in production. This classification is
important to differentiate biorefinery models in operation from
models that are in the laboratory development phase. In this
approach, IEA classifies biorefineries based on four essential
characteristics, which are identified as (I) platforms; (II)
products (energy and biobased materials and chemicals); (III)
raw materials; and (IV) conversion processes.4,6
Biorefinery feedstocks and biomass comprise a wide variety
of organic materials that contain carbon. Raw materials can be
grouped into the following crops: (a) agricultural energy crops
(starch and short-cycle forestry), which represent the main raw
materials used today; (b) waste crops and biomass from
agriculture, forestry, commerce, and industry (straw, bark,
waste cooking oils, and biomass processing); (c) urban solid
waste; and (d) industrial gases (CO and H2).4 This indicates
that the concept of biorefinery is subject to change that leads
to challenges in the context of standardization from different
perspectives present in the literature on the subject.7
The gaps found in the scientific literature on multiproduct
biorefineries involve the absence of models that allow for a
multidimensional assessment of the environmental, social, and
economic impacts of these projects. Furthermore, scientific
productions on the topic do not present an assessment of the
uncertainties in the data used to achieve the results, which may
compromise the results for decision making. This article’s
distinguishing feature is the construction of a mathematical
model for the multidimensional assessment of environmental,
economic, and social impacts for decision-making. Further-
more, an assessment of the uncertainties of the input data and
the results obtained from the constructed model was carried
out.
Multiproduct biorefineries consist of the production of
different products from processing one or more types of
biomass.8 The scientific literature on biorefineries have focused
on producing liquid and gaseous biofuels.4 However, invest-
ment in biofuel-based biorefineries is risky due to lower oil
prices.8 In addition, the biomasses considered in several
biorefinery studies come from large-scale agricultural produc-
tion, such as the soy- and palm-based agro-industrial complex,
which generates income concentration and land use competi-
tion to produce food and chemicals.4
The flexibility for processing biomass into different products
supports biobased industry competitiveness. In this context,
multiproduct biorefineries represent an industrial segment with
a potential to promote the economy diversification in
developing countries such as Guinea-Bissau,9 where the
primary sector contributed 50% of the gross domestic product
(GDP) in 2018 and absorbed the largest workforce share.10
B https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
The technical indicators of bioenergy production have been
the main focus of analysis in the consulted literature.7,11,12
Moreover, most of the studies for techno-economic, environ-
mental, and social evaluation of multiproduct biorefineries do
not consider an uncertainty evaluation of the indicators used,
compromising the reliability of the results obtained for
decision-making.13−15 The result of a measurement is only
an approximation of its value; therefore, this must be
accompanied by its uncertainty,16 which contains a range of
reasonable values of the measurand.17 Therefore, the
uncertainty evaluation is used to quantify the reliability of a
measurement, which is associated with the knowledge of its
precision and accuracy.18
This review proposes a multidimensional optimization
model to evaluate the sustainability of biorefineries based on
technical, economic, environmental, and social indicators,
considering the uncertainties associated with the respective
indicators. In this perspective, the implementation of new
multiproduct biorefineries was evaluated to process bunches of
fresh palm fruits (PF) and peeled castor seeds (CS) in Guinea-
Bissau. These raw materials are abundant in the Atlantic forest
of sub-Saharan African countries.19,20 Palm oil is the most
consumed vegetable oil in the world.21 In addition, the
international market for crude castor oil is growing by 3 to 5%
a year, while the sale price of refined oils, stearin, and castor
coproducts has increased, which makes it attractive to invest in
this segment in Guinea-Bissau.22
To reach the defined objective, the contents of this work
were distributed in the following sections: problem, research
justification, and objectives in Section 1 (Introduction);
description of the methodological approach and definition of
the techno-economic-environmental-social evaluation model in
Section 2 (Methodology); results obtained from the base and
optimized scenarios from the model proposed in Section 3
(Results); discussion of results in Section 4 (Discussion); and
conclusions and recommendations in Section 5 (Conclusions).
2. METHODOLOGY
The methodological procedure of this work consists of five
steps (Figure 1), which are described in the following sections.
Figure 1. Steps of the methodological procedure of this work.
2.1. Biorefinery System Definition. The main stages and
flows of the biorefinery production system are listed in Figure
2.
2.2. Modeling. 3
The quantitative research method, based on the multi-
objective function optimization model, was used to evaluate
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 2. Biorefinery production system. (a) Disregarded in the economic indicator; (b) disregarded in the environmental indicator. Source: data
from ref 23.
the viability of multiproduct biorefineries in the technical,
economic, environmental, and social dimensions. The
proposed model was built based on the optimization
technique.24 The problem’s decision variables and constraint
conditions are linear. The description of the generic model of
the ε-constrained optimization problem is represented by eq 1.
Maximize Z1(x)
s. a. Z 2(x) 2,
Z 3(x) 3,
...
Zp(x) p,
x S
where Z1= profit maximization; Z2 = GHG emission; Z3 = job
generation; εi = satisfaction level of objective function i; and
the solutions can be obtained through variations of parameters
of satisfaction levels ε2,ε3,εp in the objective function
constraints. However, if one of the objective functions is to
be maximized, the related constraint must be in the form Zi (x)
≥ εi. To solve this problem, it is initially necessary to optimize
each of the objective functions individually to find the Pareto
Frontier Points and then define the optimal point that satisfies
the total set of multiobjective functions.
2.2.1. Techno-Economic Evaluation Model. The vector
q→ = (q1, q2, q3, ..., q7) was defined to represent the decision
variables of the products to be manufactured, which are the
following: crude palm oil (q1), crude castor oil (q2), refined
palm oil (q3), refined castor oil (q4), palm stearin (q5), castor
stearin (q6), and palm kernel oil (q7). Such products are
produced from the following raw materials: fresh palm fruits
(β1) and castor seeds (β2). The capacity and quantity of
biorefineries were defined based on the availability of raw
materials (PF and CS) in the country under study, based on eq
2:
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
qi i
Ki
fori = 1, 2, 3, . .., 7 (2)
where qi represents the produced amount i in kg day−1; βi
represents the amount of raw material i available in kg, and Ki
is the unit capacity of biorefineries, in 1 (kg day)−1.
The produced amount of crude oil and palm kernel oil (q1,
q2 e q7) was estimated on the raw materials of PF and CS
(β1and β1, respectively). The amount of refined oil produced
(q3 and q4) was estimated from the amount of crude oil
produced (q1and q2). Finally, the amount of stearin produced
(q5 and q6) was estimated from the amount of refined oil
produced (q3 and q4). However, refined palm kernel oil was
considered a coproduct of palm kernel; therefore, 100% of the
(1) available PF kernel was destined for producing palm kernel oil,
while the palm kernel cake was destined for feed production
(Appendix A, SI). The annual gross profit maximization
objective function is presented in eq 3, which is dependent on
eq 4 to 6.
7
MaximizeZ1: P = Pi
i=1 (3)
Pi = (R i (Ci + Ctransp)) (4)
R i = qi × SPi (5)
Ci = qi × PCi (6)
where P represents the gross profit in US$ day−1 for a total of
286 operating days year−1; Pi represents the profit of
production i in US$ day−1; Ri represents gross revenue i in
US$ day−1; Ci represents the production cost i in US$ day−1; qi
is the produced quantity i in kg day−1; SPi represents the
selling price i in US$ kg−1; and PCi is the production cost in
US$ kg−1. The decision variables are the produced quantities
C https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

of qi. The input data of the raw material yield and processing 2.2.2. Environmental Evaluation Model. Greenhouse gas
costs are shown in Table 3. (GHG) emissions were used in the environmental indicator of
The optimal location of the biorefineries was defined from this study with the minimization objective function (eq 16).
eq 7 to eq 10. 2
2 MinimizeZ 2: GHG = [GHGi × qi ]
min Ctransp = Ctranspunit × iab
× dab i=1 (16)
i=1 i j (7)
where GHG is the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent
Subject to (CO2eq) emitted in the life cycle of the processing stage of raw
materials in kg of CO2eq day−1; GHGi is the emission
ia
aia(i = 1, 2, . .. n) coefficient in processing i in kg of CO2eq kg−1; and qi is the
i (8) produced quantity i in kg day−1. The input data of GHG
emissions from processed raw materials (Table 2) and the
ib
K ib(j = 1, 2, ...m) produced quantity of each product (Table S.8 of the Appendix
j (9) G, SI) are described in Section 2.3.
2.2.3. Social Evaluation Model. The social evaluation
iab 0 (10) model was built for job generation with the maximization
objective function by the quantity of raw materials processed in
where, Ctransp represents the total transport cost in US$ day−1; the biorefineries under study (eq 17).
Ctransp unit is the transport cost in US$ (kg km)−1; βiab is the
2
amount of raw material transported in kg day−1; dab is the
distance between the point of origin a and point of destination MaximizeZ 3: JG = [JGi × qi]
b, in km; βia is the amount of raw material to be transported i=1 (17)
from the point of origin a, in kg day−1; Kia is the quantity of where JG is the total number of job generation; JGi is the
raw material available at the point of origin a, in kg day−1; Kib is coefficient of job generation per product i in 1 kg−1; and qi
the quantity demanded in the biorefinery in kg day−1. represents the produced amount of a product i in kg day−1.
The quantity of each product is estimated from eq 11 to eq The input data of job generation from processed raw materials
15, in which it is possible to verify the interdependence of each (Table 4) and the produced quantity of each product (Table
product in a biorefinery. S.9 of the Appendix G, SI) are described in Section 2.3.
2 2.2.4. Model Constraints. The models representing the
qi = xi × i
constraints for processing the raw materials evaluated in this
i=1 (11) study are presented in eqs 15and 15.
2.3. Data Collection. Data were collected from specialized
7 Web sites of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
( × qi) Wmax United Nations − FAOSTAT20 and AQUASTAT FAO
i=1 (12) DATABASE,25,26 the Brazilian Agricultural and Agricultural
Company − EMBRAPA,27−30 and official sources from the
7
government of Guinea-Bissau.31−35 The biorefineries capacity
( × qi) Emax was defined for the base scenario based on the current
i=1 (13)
production in 2021 of PF and CS. The market trend analysis of
7 PF and CS based products and coproducts was carried out
( ×( × qi)) WWmax through technological prospecting based on data of the
i
i=1 (14) Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in
the last 50 years,36 which covers from 1972 to 2022. We found
qi > 0 (15) 11 patents on PF processing and 89 patents on CS
processing.33 The patent searches were carried out to
where xi is the coefficient used in each production phase; α is understand the technological trends of the PF and CS based
the amount of water used in the production of each product in industries, which are essential for decision-making and building
kg day−1; qi represents the produced quantity of a product i in a patent holder network.
kg day−1; Wmax is the maximum amount of water to be used in The raw material availability is an indicator used in decision-
kg day−1; δ is the amount of electricity used in the production making about the processing capacity of multiproduct
of each product in kWh kg−1; Emax is the maximum amount of biorefineries to avoid production idleness. In this regard, the
electricity to use in kWh day−1; γ is the wastewater generation collected data from secondary sources were used to quantity
coefficient from the water use in the production of each the raw material supply to biorefineries in Guinea-Bissau,
product in kg kg−1; WWmax is the maximum amount of which were 3.66 × 105 tons (t) a year of PF37 and 1.8 × 104 t
wastewater to be generated in kg day−1; and k is the year−1 of CS.19 The total harvested area of the raw materials
production capacity of the biorefinery. These parameters was 1.41 × 109 ha. The CS productivity is 1.64 × 103 kg ha−1,
(Wmax, Emax, and WWmax), should be defined by the local policy while PF is 8.42 × 103 kg ha−1 in Guinea-Bissau, as described
and may vary according to the government’s environmental in Appendix C, SI.
requirements at the time. Input data on product yield for each The biorefineries’ total capacity represents the unitary
production phase and the utility services for water, electricity, capacity sum of the seven biorefineries in this study. The
and wastewater are described in Section 2.3. The other model demand for PF based products in Guinea-Bissau was estimated
parameters appear in Appendix I, SI. from the consumption volume of crude palm and palm kernel
D https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

oils over the last five years.37 CS based products demand was The biorefineries locations were defined based on the raw
estimated using seed supply and available land area for material availability in each city and the industries demand to
agricultural expansion in Guinea-Bissau, 1.98 × 106 ha. To process these inputs. The product and coproduct delivery to
assess gross revenue, we collected the sale prices of biorefinery the consumers were disregarded in this study since the
products (Table 1). consumers themselves are responsible for this transport. The
input data for water, electricity, and wastewater are listed in
Table 1. Selling Price of Products from Palm Fruits and Table 3.
Castor Seedsa
Table 3. Processing Yield, Cost, and Utility Parameters for
raw material processing
Palm Fruits and Castor Seeds; Source: Data from Refs 48,49
selling price palm fruit castor seed unit
parameters palm fruit castor seed unit
crude oil (SP1 and SP2) 4.99 7.19 US$ L−1
refined oil (SP3 and SP4) 9.98 11.42 US$ L−1 yield
stearin (SP5 and SP6) 10.72 15.00 US$ kg−1 crude oil (x1 and x2) 0.22 0.43 kg kg−1
refined kernel oil (SP7) 10.91 US$ L−1 refined oil (x3 and x4) 0.21 0.28 kg kg−1
a stearin (x5 and x6) 0.06 0.30 kg kg−1
Source: data from ref 38
kernel oil (x7) 0.03 kg kg−1
production cost
Inventory reports from the ecoinvent life cycle inventory
crude oil (PC1 and PC2) 0.42 0.38 US$ L−1
database version 3.639 with the allocation procedure by process
refined oil (PC3 and PC4) 0.82 0.62 US$ L−1
subdivision (cutoff criteria) were used to obtain the unitary
stearin (PC5 and PC6) 1.56 2.92 US$ kg−1
carbon footprint of the IPCC-2013 method GWP-100 (100-
kernel oil (PC7) 1.12 US$ L−1
year global warming potential) for the evaluated products in
utility
this study (Table 2).
water use (α) 1.36 1.9 kg kg−1
The input data of the supplied quantity and transport
electricity use (δ) 0.019 3.48 kWh kg−1
distance between the farms and biorefineries are presented in
wastewater generation (γ × α) 0.50 0.53 L kg−1
Appendix B, SI, while the average transport cost is 0.038 US$
(kg km)−1, estimated based on data from the Biorefinery
Simulator. Transport Cost47 (Appendix C, SI). According to The input data to assess the social impact of the biorefinery
data presented in Appendix B, SI, the values of the variables on the job generation are presented in Table 4.
used to define the biorefinery’s optimal locations are presented The job generation was estimated for the quantity of each
from eq 7 to eq 10. The farms and biorefineries location data product produced, which was based on data of Embrapa for
were collected on Google maps, which allowed estimating the agroindustry.29,30 Thus, the amount of job generation is the
transport distances. The parameters considered for transport multiplication of the job generation coefficient by the quantity
optimization are the cost of transport, determined from the produced for each product.
distance between the farms where the raw materials originate 2.4. Uncertainty Characterization. The uncertainty
from the processing sites, and the weight of the transported evaluation of this study was carried out from the uncertainty
raw materials (from eq 6 to eq 9, Appendices C and D, SI). characterization of the parameters used in the estimation

Table 2. Unitary Carbon Footprint per Product of the Evaluated Biorefinerye

global
warming
potential inventory name
(kg CO2eq
parameter kg−1) product process comment
palm fruit
40
crude oil 1.403 palm oil palm oil mill operation - RoW
(GHG1) crude
refined oil 2.558 palm oil palm oil refinery operation - GLOa oil input: 1.01 kg kg−1; refining: 1.141 kg CO2eq kg−141
(GHG3) refined
stearin (GHG5) 3.281 stearic stearic acid production - GLOb oil input: 1.11 kg kg−1 in the stearin production;
acid stearin productionc: 0.440 kg CO2eq kg−142
refined kernel 2.074 fatty acid fatty acid production from palm kernel oil - RoW a
oil input: 1.03 kg kg−1; refining: 0.303 kg CO2eq kg−143
oil (GHG7)
castor seed
crude oil 6.750 castor oil soybean meal and crude oil production − RoWd; Castor oil extraction: 0.235 kg CO2eq kg−144,45; raw material
(GHG2) crude seed production - RoW as raw material production [43.44].
refined oil 8.449 castor oil soybean oil refinery operation − RoWd; oil input: 1.03 kg kg−1; refining: 1.496 kg CO2eq kg−146
(GHG4) refined
stearin (GHG6) 9.819 stearic stearic acid production - GLOb oil input: 1.11 kg kg−1 in the stearin production;
acid stearin productionc: 0.440 kg CO2eq kg−142

a
Crude oil from RoW supplier only. bThe mass allocation procedure was used in the multiproduct process so that the same unit carbon footprint is
representative for processing oils with different concentrations of stearin. cprocess adapted from bovine tallow input to vegetable oil input. dProcess
adapted from soybean oil input to castor oil input without considering the difference in raw material content and processing technology. eRoW:
Rest of the world; GLO: global. Source: data from ref 46.

E https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Table 4. Number of Direct Jobs per Kilogram of Product in simulation (MCS) values to obtain the GSD, as represented by
Agribusinessa eq 19.
raw material parameter job generation/(1 kg−1) GSDout = exp(Standev. a(ln(MCS))) (19)
palm fruit crude oil (JG1) 0.0009
refined oil (JG3), 0.0018 where GSDout is the output geometric standard deviation; exp
stearin (JG5) 0.0021 is the exponential distribution of the sample standard deviation
refined palm kernel oil (JG7) 0.0011 values; Standev.a is sample standard deviation; Ln is the natural
castor seed crude oil (JG2) 0.0040 logarithm; and MCS represents each MCS value. The eq 18
refined oil (JG4) 0.0067 and eq 19 represent the Monte Carlo Simulation model
stearin (JG6) 0.0079 applied to evaluate the uncertainties of the final indicator
a
Source: data from refs 30,50−52.
values.
2.5. Simulation, Visualization, and Analysis. The data
obtained were compiled with programming language support
in Python, R, and Mendeley. The multidimensional modeling,
equations of the final indicators of the economic (eq 3), simulation, and optimization of the biorefinery sustainability
environmental (eq 16), and social (eq 17) dimensions. The were run in Python programming language version 3.7, whose
default basic uncertainty and additional uncertainty from the code is presented in Appendix D, SI. Furthermore, the
pedigree matrix for data quality evaluation53 were used (Table optimization model was applied in the simplex method.
5) to characterize the total uncertainty (eq 18) for each The repercussion of the input quantities’ uncertainty on the
parameter of the final indicator. output quantity’s uncertainty is called uncertainty propaga-
According to Table 5, basic uncertainty represents an initial tion.56 In this perspective, an Excel spreadsheet was used to
estimate of uncertainty, which is characterized by a value generate the SMC in 10,000 iterations for each input variable
defined by parameter class, while pedigree uncertainty is to estimate the uncertainty of the output variable of each
characterized by the following indicators: reliability (data measurement model of the final indicators. The graphical
sources, collection, and verification techniques); completeness representation of the results obtained with the SMC can be
(statistical representativeness and robustness of the sample); viewed in Appendix G, SI. In addition, a scenario analysis was
temporality (correlation between the year of data collection conducted to identify the profit maximization and GHG
and the period of development of the research in question); emission minimization potential in the optimized scenario
geographic location (coverage of the region where the data based on the product type. An offset cost was considered as a
were measured); and technology (processes that were strategy to compensate for GHG emissions in the profit
measured).53 The pedigree score ranges from 1 to 5 for each maximization scenario to support the identification of a global
of the above indicators, with 1 indicating the highest quality optimum solution. To generate the alternative results, the main
data and 5 indicating the lowest quality. The scores assigned objective function of the optimization model is replaced by
are associated with the uncertainty factors for each indicator in another objective function, which is added as a constraint, as
the pedigree matrix. The total uncertainty of each parameter of well as the other secondary objective functions (minimization
the final indicator was estimated from eq 18.54 of GHG emission and maximization JG), according to
Appendix E, SI.
ij ÄÅ É y
GSD2x = expjjj
j ÅÅln GSD2 ÑÑÑ2 zzzz
jj Å
ÅÅÇ (xi Ñ
ÑÑ zz
Ö z ) 3. RESULTS
k i=1 { (18)
2
The results of this study made it possible to identify the
where GSDx represents the total uncertainty of a parameter x potential for implementing biorefineries to process PF and CS
in squared geometric standard deviation; GSD2xi represents the d

in Guinea-Bissau. The study analyzed the biorefining system’s

contribution of basic and pedigree uncertainties of a parameter
x in square geometric standard deviation. Furthermore, the
probability distribution was defined as log-normal.55 The
arithmetic standard deviation of the final indicators was
obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation values. Also, Ln was
applied to convert the standard deviation of Monte Carlo
economic, environmental, and social sustainability based on
different scenarios for processing the aforementioned raw
materials available in that country.
The unit transport costs of the raw materials from the
producing farms to the biorefineries are presented in Appendix
C, SI, in which it is verified that the transport costs are

Table 5. Uncertainty Characterization for the Final Indicator Parametersa

variable per evaluated dimension GSD GSD2 basic uncertainty pedigree uncertainty [matrix pedigree score]
gross profit: Pi= ∑(Ri − (Ci + Ctransp))
gross revenue (Ri) 1.11 1.24 1.05 3; 1; 1; 2; 3 [1.10; 1.00; 1.00; 1.01; 1.20]
production cost (Ci) 1.11 1.24 1.05 3; 1; 1; 2; 3 [1.10; 1.00; 1.00; 1.01; 1.20]
7
GHG emissions:GHG = i= 1
[GHGi × qi]
greenhouse gases per product (GHGi) 1.15 1.33 1.05 4; 3; 2; 5; 3 [1.20; 1.05; 1.03; 1.10; 1.20]
quantity produced (qi) 1.11 1.24 1.05 3; 1; 1; 1; 3 [1.10; 1.00; 1.00; 1.00; 1.20]
7
job generation: JG = i =1
[JGi × qi ]
job generation per product (JGi) 1.15 1.33 1.05 4; 3; 2; 5; 3 [1.20; 1.05; 1.03; 1.10; 1.20]

a
GSD: geometric standard deviation. GSD2: square geometric standard deviation. Source: data from ref 49.

F https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Table 6. Techno-Economic, Environmental, and Social Parameters of the Base and Optimized Scenariosa
parameter unit
raw material for each processing product palm fruit (β1) castor seed (β2)
3.66 × 108 1.80 × 107 kg year−1
Utilities and waste
Water use (Wmax) 4.98 × 108 3.42 × 107 kg year−1
Electricity use (Emax) 6.95 × 106 6.26 × 107 kWh year−1
Wastewater generation (WWmax) 1.83 × 108 9.54 × 106 L year−1
base scenario optimized scenario
parameter value (a) value (b) difference (b − a)
decision variable
crude palm oil (q1) 3.22 × 107 0 L year−1
crude castor oil (q2) 3.10 × 106 0 L year−1
refined palm oil (q3) 2.68 × 107 7.69 × 107 + 65% L year−1
refined castor oil (q4) 1.76 × 106 5.04 × 106 + 65% L year−1
palm stearin (q5) 5.84 × 106 0 kg year−1
castor stearin (q6) 5.81 × 105 0 kg year−1
palm kernel oil (q7) 3.60 × 105 3.60 × 105 L year−1
intermediate output parameter
gross revenue (Ri) 5.45 × 108 8.29 × 108 US$ year−1
production cost (Ci) 3.19 × 107 3.24 × 107 US$ year−1
transport cost (Ctransp) 3.95 × 104 3.95 × 104 US$ year−1
raw material acquisition cost 2.75 × 107 2.75 × 107
uncertainty of the final output parameters
final output parameter SD GSD unit
gross profit (P) 5.13 × 108 7.69 × 108 11.5% 1.13 US$ year−1
emissions (GHG) 1.75 × 108 9.60 × 107 15.5% 1.09 kg CO2eq year−1
job generation (JG) 1.24 × 105 1.82 × 105 16% 1.19 1 year−1
a
L: Liter. SD: arithmetic standard deviation in relative value. GSD: geometric standard deviation in relative value.

Figure 3. Production estimate in the base scenario and optimized scenario for maximizing the gross profit in the palm fruit and castor seed
processing.

proportional to the location distance between the farms and
establishment points of the seven proposed biorefineries in this
study. In this context, the solution to the transport
optimization problem (from eq 7 to eq 10) allowed us to
establish the best transport route for raw materials to
processing points (biorefineries) and the number of oilseeds
to be transported. The total transportation cost obtained from
the optimization is 3.95 × 104 US$ year−1.
In addition, estimates were established for the base and
optimized scenarios for processing PF and CS, GHG
emissions, gross profit, and job generation. To estimate the
base scenario indicator values, 40% of the PF was allocated to
the production of crude palm oil, 35% of the PF to the
production of refined palm oil, and 25% of the PF to the
production of palm stearin. The same proportions were
defined for the processing of CS. Details of the volume of
oilseeds offered per farm and the determination of the quantity
G https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
to be allocated to the processing points can be seen in
Appendix E, SI.
It is essential to point out that the simulation of the base
scenario was carried out using crude oil from PF and castor
bean. Thus, refined palm oil and stearin yields are 95% on
crude oil and 29% on refined oil. On the other hand, the yields
of refined castor oil and stearin were established based on
crude castor oil, being 65 and 30%, respectively. According to
Table 6, the estimated gross profit in the base scenario is 5.13
× 108 US$ year−1.
On the other hand, the solution of the proposed
optimization model allowed verifying that the quantity to be
produced to maximize the gross profit is 7.69 × 107 kg year−1
of refined palm oil and 5.04 × 106 kg year−1 of refined castor
oil. The comparison of the base and optimized scenario results
can be seen in Figure 3.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Figure 4. Gross profit, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and job generation in the base scenario and optimized scenario for maximizing the gross
profit. P: gross profit; GHG, greenhouse gas emission; JG, job generation.

Figure 5. Scenario analysis for profit maximization and greenhouse gas (GHG) minimization in the optimized scenario: P, gross profit; GHG:
greenhouse gas emission; JG: job generation. Carbon price: 0.1 US$/(kg CO2eq).56

The difference between the amount of refined palm oil and
stearin to be produced (Figure 3) resulted from the
formulation of the optimization modeling to maximize the
social (JG) and economic (P) impacts, and minimize the
environmental impacts (GHG). Figure 4 presents the
comparative values of the base scenario related to the gross
profit, GHG emissions, and direct job generation in the
biorefineries based on the objective function for profit
maximization from the simplex method.
The proposed optimization model solution and its respective
decision variables are listed in Table 6. The gross profit
obtained with the maximization objective function in the
optimized scenario is 7.69 × 108 US$. In addition, an
uncertainty evaluation was carried out based on the equations
of the final indicators of the proposed optimization model,
which includes gross profit (P), GHG emissions (GHG), and
job generation (JG).
It is important to highlight that the results of utility use
(water and electricity) and water waste generation were
calculated depending on the raw materials. These results can
be seen in the initial part of Table 6 and represent a generic
estimation to evaluate the environmental aspects of processing
the raw materials proposed in this article.
The solution of the gross profit maximization optimization
model generates a larger number of direct jobs compared to
the base scenario (Figure 5). However, GHG emissions are
higher in the optimized scenario, which indicates a trade-off for
the decision maker, as minimizing GHG emissions decreases
the operation’s gross profit by 63%. On the other hand, the
profit maximization increased GHG emissions by 150%. An
alternative to offset GHG emissions is to buy the carbon credit
H https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
from the excess GHG emissions from the maximized
production profit. To identify the impact of buying carbon
credits on the gross profit of biorefineries, values of 0.03 US$
(kg CO2eq)−1 and 0.10 US$ (kg CO2eq)−1 were considered.56
In this regard, for the purchase of carbon credits at 0.03 US$
kg−1, the total cost is 4.32 × 106, which represents 0.56% of the
gross profit of the biorefineries, while the carbon credit at 0.10
US$ kg−1 represents the total value of 1.44 × 107 (1.87% of the
profit). In addition, a scenario was simulated in which all GHG
emissions were compensated with a carbon credit at the price
of 0.10 US$ kg−1 CO2eq In this scenario, the amount needed
to offset the total GHG emissions is 2.40 × 107 US$,
representing 3.12% of the operation’s gross profit. In this
context, it is possible to initially establish a strategy to
maximize the production profits of biorefineries and offset all
GHG emissions.
Job generation unitary values (Table 4) were obtained
through the coefficients assigned to each product from the
processing of PF and CS. According to,49,54 land occupation is
5 people ha−1 in oil palm production and 2 people ha−1 in CS
production (Appendix F, SI). In this context, the agricultural
production of PF has the potential to employ 2.18 × 105
people year−1 in the field, with an estimated income of 2.65 ×
103 US$ year−1, while the agricultural production of CS can
employ 2.2 × 104 people. In this context, the job generation
coefficient in the field is 2.27 × 10−4 and 5 × 10−1 per kilogram
of PF and CS, respectively. Such coefficients were used in the
Monte Carlo simulation, which allowed the potential to
generate 8.54 × 104 jobs year−1 in producing raw materials for
the proposed biorefineries in Guinea-Bissau. Other social
benefits associated with processing these oilseeds in Guinea-
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Bissau are indirect jobs in the biorefining industry, which
depend on the capacity of the processing facilities and the
production strategy adopted in the operational units, as shown
in Table 6.
4. DISCUSSION
The literature review was carried out based on searches in the
Web of Science database, which allowed selecting the recent
literature on the subject of this article. The consulted literature
covers the bioeconomy and bioenergy from agricultural raw
materials. In this regard, this article discusses an alternative for
exploring the potential for transforming raw materials available
in Guinea-Bissau through the installation of biorefinery units in
different parts of the country with an approach to PF and CS.
This study demonstrated that the production of pharmaceut-
ical, food, and cosmetic products from palm oil palm and
castor seeds allows adding value to the aforementioned raw
materials in Guinea-Bissau, in addition to contributing to
industrial development in that country. The calculation of
production costs and estimated sales revenue made it possible
to verify the great potential for the return on investment and
promotion of social inclusion in the proposed biorefineries.
The implementation of modular biorefining systems for
processing PF and CS could supply a large part of the demand
for industrialized products, such as crude and refined palm and
castor oils, palm and castor stearin, and palm kernel oil. In
addition, castor oil can be used to manufacture inputs for the
cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry, while the cake from
biomass processing can be used as coproducts to increase the
added-value of biorefineries in Guinea-Bissau.
Modular biorefineries can contribute positively to Guinea-
Bissau’s trade balance and improve the income of families
involved in the supply of raw materials and biomass, involving
agricultural cooperatives and small producers. In addition,
modular biorefineries can drive innovation in bioproducts,
biomaterials and their respective industrial applications in the
manufacture of food proteins, animal feed, health, beauty,
hygiene and aesthetics products.6
Enterprises in the industrial segment (food, cosmetics, and
pharmaceutical industries) in Guinea-Bissau have a marked
deficit in the production and supply of products to meet the
demand of the local market. To supply the internal demand,
there is an external dependence on imports of inputs from the
international market. Guinea-Bissau’s biggest trading partners
are Portugal, Senegal, India and China.32,57 These countries are
the main suppliers of industrialized products and high
technology equipment to Guinea-Bissau. However, Guinea-
Bissau has a historical deficit in the trade balance and in
transactions with these countries since 2019 due to the export
of raw materials with low added value and the import of
products with high added value.58
Biorefineries are production systems that integrate processes
and equipment for biochemical, physical-chemical or thermo-
chemical conversion of raw materials and biomass to produce
bioproducts such as proteins, bioenergy or biomaterials for
industrial applications.1 Already in the conception of,59,60 the
biorefinery represents a processing plant, where biomass and
organic-based biomass are extracted and converted into a
spectrum of products with high added value. Likewise, its
operation is similar to that of conventional refineries.
According to,8 knowledge about modular biorefineries is still
incipient in West Africa. Thus, the data available for
dimensioning the parameters of techno-economic, environ-
I https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
mental, and social evaluation are very limited in the scientific
literature. It is worth noting that the use of the Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) technique should be complemented by
techno-economic and social analysis to support the decision-
making on a sustainability basis.
The study carried out by6 allowed the development of a
theoretical framework on the techno-economic-environmental-
social evaluation models of modular biorefineries in Guinea-
Bissau based on operational research tools; carry out an
environmental assessment of GHG emissions and social impact
through the number of jobs generated over the operational
cycle of modular biorefineries.
Considering the availability of oleaginous raw material for
processing in Guinea-Bissau, this study presents the concept of
a modular decentralized biorefinery to support the integration
of agricultural and industrial processes, which together with
sustainable-based policies allows the development of the
industrial segment, while reducing external dependence on
industrialized inputs in Guinea-Bissau.
The palm based agroindustry represents the largest
generator of direct jobs in the worldwide,49 in which the
world’s largest producers are Malaysia and Indonesia due to
the dominance of the palm crop and favorable edaphoclimatic
conditions for the growth of this oleaginous plant.49
In Brazil, there was remarkable growth in prospective studies
on the expansion of palm farming in the 2010s, driven by the
demand for biodiesel, mainly in the state of Bahia.6 However,
there were few advances due to the negative environmental
and social impacts associated with land use, in addition to the
low competitiveness with the soybean crop abundant in the
Brazilian territory, which is a favorite substitute in biodiesel
production.27−30
On the other hand, the castor crop is also of great
importance in the oilseed industry, but it encounters growth
barriers associated with the mastery of the crop and processing
technologies to manufacture products with high added value
for the cosmetic, food, or pharmaceutical industries.22
The installation of biorefineries for crushing PF and CS and
an integrated supply chain for the commercialization of
products derived from the processing of these oleaginous
raw materials has the potential to generate positive social,
environmental, and economic impacts in Guinea-Bissau, which
faces a deficit in trade balance and labor idleness.
This prospective study analyzed biorefineries’ technical,
economic, environmental, and social viability in Guinea-Bissau.
It verified the economic and financial viability of implementing
this industry in Guinea-Bissau. In addition, quantifying
environmental impacts from GHG emissions and social impact
through jobs generation of oleaginous raw material processing
in decentralized biorefineries supported the sustainability
optimization potential of this business for Guinea-Bissau.
Also, the results indicated the opportunity to expand PF and
CS production in different locations in the country, which may
increase the availability of these oleaginous raw materials.
However, the technical aspects such as the adequate distance
from the production site of the raw materials to the processing
installation and the product and coproduct distribution to
commercial centers should be observed to support competitive
logistics.
Another essential factor to emphasize in prospective studies
is the reliability of the results from data collected from different
secondary sources for the development of this study.
Therefore, the uncertainty of the data used in this study was
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
evaluated, but it was decided that only the final equations of
the mathematical modeling proposed.
4.1. Opportunities and Challenges. The extraction of
PF and CS in Guinea-Bissau is carried out by women in an
artisanal way, using manual tools, which generate low
productivity. Even though PF productivity is inefficient in
Guinea-Bissau, the country produced an average of 8.42 × 103
t (ha year)−1 between 2016 and 2019 (Appendix B, SI). A large
part of this production is destined for the families’ self-
consumption, and the surplus is sold in the local market, with
little added value.
In this context, the results of the study on the techno-
economic, environmental, and social viability of processing PF
are essential for public policymakers in Guinea-Bissau, which
can serve as a basis for encouraging private initiative in this
industry segment. Crude palm oil is a food product, and the
fibers can be used to cogenerate energy. Refined palm oil, palm
kernel oil, and palm stearin are inputs for the food, cosmetics,
and pharmaceutical industries and are used in the manufacture
of ice cream, chocolate, lubricants for food production
machines, hardening of candies, soaps, lotions, cream shaving,
and skin cream, among others. At the same time, crude castor
oil, refined oil, and stearin have applications in the cosmetic
and pharmaceutical industries. In addition, castor stearin is
used to manufacture candles, soaps and detergents, lipstick,
softeners, lubricants, chalk, and wax.
The industrial segment represented 13% of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) in Guinea-Bissau, while agriculture
accounted for 51% of the GDP in 2021. The service segment
contributed 31% of the GDP in the same year.55 In this
context, the products evaluated in this study based on PF and
CS processing (Table 6) allowed the definition of a scenario
capable of contributing to the economic diversification of
Guinea-Bissau, in addition to environmental and social
benefits, such as the reduction of GHG emissions and the
generation of new jobs, respectively. Furthermore, it is possible
to verify that Guinea-Bissau has excellent potential for
producing palm and castor based products (Appendix B and
Appendix D, SI). This production can be expanded by
installing new biorefineries in different regions of that country.
In the same way, the results obtained in the techno-
economic evaluation of biorefineries allowed for the establish-
ment of the quantity to be produced of each product from the
PF and CS processing.
The agroindustry in Guinea-Bissau can also contribute to
reducing deforestation and valuing the living forest when
considering PF and CS harvesting from agroecological farms,
while promoting sustainable development based on income
generation, GHG emission reduction, and qualified job
generation in multiproduct biorefineries.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The installation of multiproduct biorefineries can contribute
significantly to the diversification of the economy of Guinea-
Bissau, allowing the creation of new markets for the
commercialization of palm and castor based products. The
optimization models used to evaluate the techno-economic,
environmental and social viability allowed dimensioning the
quantity to be produced of each product (Table 6) and
optimization of the transport of raw materials to the
biorefineries (Appendix F, SI), which minimizes transport
costs and GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning.
J https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
The products and coproducts selected for analysis in this
study represent the main inputs with high-added value for the
pharmaceutical, cosmetic, or food industry in Guinea-Bissau.
In addition, they can be produced on a large scale for
commercialization in national and international markets. In
addition, the job generation in the countryside represents
social gains for that country, where there is a large idleness of
labor in the cashew nut off-season. The economic expansion
based on agroecological production of palm fruit and castor
seeds have significant environmental and social potential
benefits for Guinea-Bissau, which involves CO2 capture and
product recovery from waste materials.
Finally, it is up to policymakers in Guinea-Bissau to
encourage investment by the private sector in the production
segment of high-added value inputs for the pharmaceutical,
cosmetic, or food industries, from palm fruits and castor seeds.
Future research may address the potential of agroecological
biomass in Guinea-Bissau beyond the oleaginous raw materials
evaluated in this study.
The limitations of this study are presented as follows:
• This research analyzes only two oleaginous raw materials
(palm fruit and castor seed) in a broader set of available
raw materials that can be processed in biorefineries in
Guinea-Bissau;
• Use of secondary data collected from different consulted
sources;
• Assessment of three final sustainability indicators that
can be complemented based on the case study;
• Uncertainty evaluation of the three final indicators,
which should be expanded to the intermediate indicators
that were modeled;
• Use of a simplified method for uncertainty character-
ization, which was the Pedigree Matrix;
• Public authorities and other stakeholders should be
engaged to ensure the successful implementation of
biorefineries in Guinea-Bissau;
• The national land areas should be partially used in
reforestation to offset GHG emissions of the biorefinery
system to avoid buying carbon credits from abroad.
• Estimates of the use of utilities in the production and
water waste generation were made based on raw
materials due to unavailability of data. Subsequent
studies may consider specific estimates to evaluate the
environmental aspects of each product.
These limitations represent opportunities for future work on
the topics addressed in this study.
■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information
sı
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632.
Appendices A−I (PDF)
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Tito Francisco Ianda − Federal University of Bahia (UFBA),
Institute of Science, Technology and Innovation (ICTI),
42802-02 Camaçari, BA, Brazil; orcid.org/0000-0002-
0846-7217; Email: tito.ianda@ufba.br
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Authors
Ricardo de Araújo Kalid − Federal University of Southern
Bahia (UFSB), CEP 45600-000 Itabuna, Brazil
Lucas Bonfim-Rocha − Technological Federal University of
Paraná (UTFPR), BR, Department of Chemical Engineering,
Londrina 86036-370, Brazil
Fernando Luiz Pellegrini Pessoa − University center SENAI
CIMATEC, Salvador, Bahia 41650-010, Brazil
Diego Lima Medeiros − Clean Technologies Network
(TECLIM), Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA),
Balsas 65800-000 MA, Brazil; orcid.org/0000-0002-
6332-7217
Filipe Oliveira − Department of Industrial Engineering (PEI/
UFBA), Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador CEP
40210-630 BA, Brazil
Dayvid Souza Santos − Department of Industrial Engineering
(PEI/UFBA), Federal University of Bahia (UFBA),
Salvador CEP 40210-630 BA, Brazil
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was carried out with the support of the
Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education
Personnel − Brazil (CAPES) − Financing Code 001. The
funding agency had no involvement in the research activities
and manuscript preparation. The authors thank the ecoinvent
Association on behalf of GreenDelta GmbH for providing the
life cycle inventory database license for the Federal University
of Bahia (UFBA).
■ REFERENCES
(1) Nali, E. C.; Ribeiro, L. B. N. M.; Hora, A. B. Biorrefinaria
Integrada à Indústria de Celulose No Brasil: Oportunidade Ou
Necessidade? BNDES Setorial 2016, 43, 257−294.
(2) Escobar, N.; Laibach, N. Sustainability Check for Bio-Based
Technologies: A Review of Process-Based and Life Cycle Approaches.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2021, 135, No. 110213.
(3) Ianda, T. F.; Kalid, R. de A.; Rocha, L. B.; Padula, A. D.;
Zimmerman, W. B. Techno-Economic Modeling to Produce Biodiesel
from Marine Microalgae in Sub-Saharan Countries: An Exploratory
Study in Guinea-Bissau. Biomass Bioenergy 2022, 158 (January),
No. 106369.
(4) OECD Biorefineries Models and Policy; 2017.
(5) de Jong, E.; Jungmeier, G. Biorefinery Concepts in Comparison
to Petrochemical Refineries. Industrial Biorefineries & White
Biotechnology; Elsevier B.V., 2015; 3-33, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-
444-63453-5.00001-X.
(6) Ianda, T. F. AVALIAÇ Ã O TECNO-ECONÔ MICA-AMBIEN-
TAL-SOCIAL DE BIORREFINARIAS MODULARES EM GUINÉ -
BISSAU; Universidade Federal da Bahia, 2023. https://repositorio.
ufba.br/bitstream/ri/37192/4/TESEFINAL_TITOIANDA12.06.
2023.pdf.
(7) Lindorfer, J.; Lettner, M.; Hesser, F.; Fazeni, K.; Rosenfeld, D.;
Annevelink, B.; Mandl, M. Technical, Economic and Environmental
Assessment of Biorefinery Concepts; IEA Bioenergy, 2019.
(8) Fletcher, E.; Adeboye, P. T.; Duedu, K. O. Toward a Sustainable
Bioeconomy in West Africa: A Focus on Biorefining. Biofuels, Bioprod.
Biorefining 2017, 6 (3), 246−256.
(9) Orejuela-Escobar, L.; Gualle, A.; Ochoa-Herrera, V.; Philippidis,
G. P. Prospects of Microalgae for Biomaterial Production and
K https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
Environmental Applications at Biorefineries. Sustainability 2021, 13
(6), 3063.
(10) AfDB/OECD/UNDP Perspetivas Económicas Em Á frica 2016
(Versão Condensada): Cidades sustentáveis e transformaçaõ estrutural;
OECD Publishing: Paris, 2016. DOI: 10.1787/9789264248649-pt.
(11) Bianco, F.; Ş enol, H.; Papirio, S. Enhanced Lignocellulosic
Component Removal and Biomethane Potential from Chestnut Shell
by a Combined Hydrothermal−Alkaline Pretreatment. Sci. Total
Environ. 2021, 762, No. 144178.
(12) Karlsson, H.; Ahlgren, S.; Sandgren, M.; Passoth, V.; Wallberg,
O.; Hansson, P.-A. Greenhouse Gas Performance of Biochemical
Biodiesel Production from Straw: Soil Organic Carbon Changes and
Time-Dependent Climate Impact. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 217
DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0907-9.
(13) Gheewala, S. H.; Jaroenkietkajorn, U.; Nilsalab, P.;
Silalertruksa, T.; Somkerd, T.; Laosiripojana, N. Sustainability
Assessment of Palm Oil-Based Refinery Systems for Food, Fuel, and
Chemicals. Biofuel Res. J. 2022, 36, 1750−1763, DOI: 10.18331/
BRJ2022.9.4.5.
(14) Bonfim-Rocha, L.; Gimenes, M. L.; Bernardo de Faria, S. H.;
Silva, R. O.; Esteller, L. J. Multi-Objective Design of a New
Sustainable Scenario for Bio-Methanol Production in Brazil. J. Cleaner
Prod. 2018, 187, 1043−1056.
(15) Guadalupe Romero-Izquierdo, A.; Israel Gomez-Castro, F.;
Gutierrez-Antonio, C.; Cruz Barajas, R.; Hernandez, S. Development
of a Biorefinery Scheme to Produce Biofuels from Waste Cooking Oil.
In 29th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, Pt
A; Kiss, A. A.; Zondervan, E.; Lakerveld, R.; Ozkan, L., Eds.;
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering; ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV:
SARA BURGERHARTSTRAAT 25, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE
AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 2019; Vol. 46, pp 289−294.
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818634-3.50049-7.
(16) INMETRO GUM 2008 - Guia Para a Expressão de Incerteza de
Mediçaõ ; 2012.
(17) Ribeiro, C. F.; Costa, A.; Meira, Rl; Martins, M. A. F.; Kalid, R.
A. Avaliaçaõ Da Incerteza de Um Indicador de Desempenho
Operacional de Uma Planta Industrial. In XXII Congresso Brasileiro
́
de Engenharia Quimica; São Paulo, 2018; p 6.
(18) Junior, P. L.; da Silveira, F. L. Sobre as Incertezas Do Tipo A e B
e Sua Propagação Sem Derivadas: Uma Contribuição Para a
́
Incorporaçaõ Da Metrologia Contemporânea Aos Laboratórios de Fisica
Básica Superior; RBEF, 2010.
(19) BNDES Estudo de Viabilidade de Produção de Biocombustiveis ́
Na UEMOA (União Econômica e Monetária Do Oeste Africano); 2013.
(20) FAOSTAT Food and agriculture data; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
#home (accessed 2021−01−19).
(21) Yokoyama, R. Y. PALMA DE Ó LEO NOS PRÓ XIMOS 10
ANOS. https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/camaras-
setoriais-tematicas/documentos/camaras-setoriais/palma-de-oleo/
2017/24a-ro/app_mercado_palma_24ro_oleo.pdf (accessed 2021−
01−20).
(22) COMPREHENSIVE CASTOR OIL REPORT; Castor Oil In:
Tamilnadu; 2013.
(23) Prasara-A, J.; Gheewala, S. H.; Silalertruksa, T.; Pongpat, P.;
Sawaengsak, W. Environmental and Social Life Cycle Assessment to
Enhance Sustainability of Sugarcane-Based Products in Thailand.
Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21 (7), 1447−1458.
(24) Bairamzadeh, S.; Pishvaee, M. S.; Saidi-Mehrabad, M.
Multiobjective Robust Possibilistic Programming Approach to
Sustainable Bioethanol Supply Chain Design under Multiple
Uncertainties. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55 (1), 237−256.
(25) FAO AQUASTAT Arable Land. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/
aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=e (accessed 2020−09−16).
(26) FAO AQUASTAT; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United State. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/
index.html?lang=en (accessed 2019−02−13).
(27) Drumond, M. A.; de Arruda, F. P.; dos Anjos, J. B. PINHÃ O-
MANSO - Jatropha Curcas L: Petrolina - PE, 2008. https://ainfo.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/CPATSA-2009-09/40026/1/ (49) Weidema, P. B.; Bauer, C.; Hischier, R.; Mutel, C.; Nemecek,
SDC212.pdf. T.; Reinhard, J.; Vadenbo, O. C.; Wernet, G. Overview and
(28) Rodrigues, G. S. Palmas Para o Dendê. Agronenergia em Rev. Methodology: Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent; St. Gallen,
2011, II (2). 2013; Vol. 3. https://ecoinvent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/
(29) Milane, M. Cultivo da Mamona. Embrapa Algodão. https:// dataqualityguideline_ecoinvent_3_20130506_.pdf.
www.spo.cnptia.embrapa.br/conteudo?p_p_id=conteudoportlet_ (50) MEJER. Mejer Cultivo, Extração e Refino de Ó leo de Palma e
WAR_sistemasdeproducaolf6_1ga1ceportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_ Palmiste. Food Ingredients Bras. 2014, 31, 56−59.
p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_ (51) Organização Internacional do Trabalho (OIT) Cadeia
col_count=1&p_r_p_-76293187_sistemaProducaoId=5701&p_r_ Produtiva Do Ó leo de Palma - Avanços e Desafios Rumo à Promoçaõ
p_-996514994_topicoId=6 (accessed 2021−01−18). Do Trabalho Decente: Análise Situacional; 2020.
(30) Embrapa Viabilidade Técnica e Econômica de Produçaõ de É steres (52) De Castro, E. C.; Dos Santos, V. M. L. Estudo Do Processo De
de Ó leo de Palma, Para Utilizaçaõ Como Substituto de Ó leo Diesel; Na Extraçaõ De Ó leo De Mamona Em Cooperativas Do Pólo São
Amazônia: Belém, PA, 2004. https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa. Francisco (Study of the Extraction Process of Castor Bean Oil in the
br/bitstream/doc/408467/1/OrientalDoc193.PDF. Cooperatives of Pole San Francisco). Engevista 2015, 17 (4), 477.
(31) WORLD BANK GROUP O portefólio do Banco Mundial na (53) Weidema, B. P.; Wesnæs, M. S. Data Quality Management for
Guiné-Bissau inclui projectos de desenvolvimento rural, gestão costeira, Life Cycle Inventories-an Example of Using Data Quality Indicators. J.
biodiversidade, recuperaçaõ de infra-estruturas e outros. http://www. Cleaner Prod. 1996, 4 (3−4), 167−174.
(54) Hauschild, M. Z.; Rosenbaum, R. K.; Olsen, S. I. Life Cycle
worldbank.org/pt/country/guineabissau (accessed 2020−09−15).
Assessment: Theory and Practice; 2017. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-
(32) ECREEE AGENDA DE AÇ Ã O PARA A ENERGIA
56475-3.
SUSTENTÁ VEL PARA TODOS NA GUINÉ - BISSAU, 2017.
(55) Muller, S.; Lesage, P.; Samson, R. Giving a Scientific Basis for
https://www.aler-renovaveis.org/contents/files/agenda-accao-
Uncertainty Factors Used in Global Life Cycle Inventory Databases:
energia-sustentavel-para-todos_outubro-2017.pdf. An Algorithm to Update Factors Using New Information. Int. J. Life
(33) Alves, M. Estudo Das Potencialidades Na Produçaõ de Matéria- Cycle Assess. 2016, 21 (8), 1185−1196.
Prima Para Biocombustiveis ́ Na Guiné-Bissau; Bissau: Guiné-Bissau, (56) IEA-Bioenergy Bio-Based Chemicals: A 2020 Update; Dublin,
2010. 2020.
(34) União, Europeia Mapeamento Da Sociedade Civil Na Guiné- (57) WORLD BANK GROUP Guinea-Bissau: Data. https://data.
Bissau; Bissau: Guiné-Bissau, 2018. worldbank.org/country/guinea-bissau?locale=pt (accessed 2020−10−
(35) Medina, N. O ECOSSISTEMA ORIZICOLA ́ NA GUINÉ - 26).
BISSAU: PRINCIPAISCONSTRANGIMENTOS À PRODUÇ Ã O NA (58) Marques, W. A. Comércio Externo Da Guiné-Bissau (2017−
ZONA I (REGIÕ ES DE BIOMBO, CACHEU E OIO) E 2021) e Portugal − Guiné-Bissau (2018−2022); 2023. https://www.
PERSPECTIVAS, UNIVERSIDADE TÉ CNICA DE LISBOA, 2008. gee.gov.pt/pt/?option=com_fileman&view=file&routed=1&name=
(36) INPI pePI - Pesquisa em Propriedade Industrial; Instituto Em Análise Guiné.Bissau e Portugal-G.Bissau (2018−2022).pdf&fold-
Nacional de Propriedade Intelectual. https://busca.inpi.gov.br/pePI/ er = estudos-e-seminarios%2Fartigos&container = fileman-files.
servlet/PatenteServletController (accessed 2022−02−22). (59) Kamm, B.; Gruber, P. R.; Mas, K. Biorefineries − Industrial
(37) Index Mundi Palm Oil Production by Country in 1000 MT; Processes and Products. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=palm- Chemistry, 7th ed.; 2007.
oil&graph=production (accessed 2021−01−19). (60) Kamm, B.; Kamm, M. B.; Gruber, P. R. Biorefinery Systems −
(38) Biomercado Indicadores de Preços Médios. http://biomercado. an Overview. In Biorefineries − Industrial Processes and Products. Status
com.br/ (accessed 2021−08−20). Quo and Future Directions; Kamm, B.; Kamm, M. B.; Gruber, P. R.
(39) Moreno-Rui, E.; Valsasina, L.; Fitzgerald, D.; Brunner, F.; (Eds.), Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2006, 1, 3−40.
Symeonidis, A.; Bourgault, G.; Wernet, G. Documentation of Changes
Implemented in Ecoinvent Database v3.6; Zürich, 2019.
(40) Gnansounou, E. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Palm Oil
Mill Operation - RoW; Palm Oil, Crude; Allocation; Cut-Off.; Zürich,
2019.
(41) Levova, T. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Palm Oil
Refinery Operation - GLO; Palm Oil, Refined; Allocation; Cut-Off.;
Zürich, 2019.
(42) Valsasina, L. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Stearic Acid
Production - GLO; Stearic Acid; Allocation; Cut-Off.; Zürich, 2019.
(43) Valsasina, L. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Fatty Acid
Production, from Palm Kernel Oil - RoW; Fatty Acid; Allocation, Cut-
Off; Zürich, 2019.
(44) Levova, T. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Soybean Meal
and Crude Oil Production - RoW; Soybean Oil, Crude; Allocation, Cut-
Off; Zürich, 2019.
(45) Bajaj, S. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Castor Bean
Production - RoW; Castor Bean; Allocatable Product; Allocation, Cut-
Off; Zürich, 2019.
(46) Greig, A. Ecoinvent 3.6 Dataset Documentation: Soybean Oil
Refinery Operation - RoW; Soybean Oil, Refined; Allocatable Product;
Allocation, Cut-Off; Zürich, 2019.
(47) EPL Simulador de Custo de Transporte. Observatório Nacional
́
de Transporte e Logistica: Empresa de Planejamento e Logisticá S.A.
https://ontl.epl.gov.br/aplicacoes/simulador-de-custo-de-transporte/
(accessed 2022−10−08).
(48) EMBRAPA RELATÓ RIO DE AVALIAÇ Ã O DOS IMPACTOS
DE TECNOLOGIAS GERADAS PELA EMBRAPA; 2018; Vol. 21.

L https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02632
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX