Clean Techn Environ Policy (2017) 19:1387–1402

DOI 10.1007/s10098-017-1337-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation

in Mexico
Saúl Domı́nguez-Garcı́a1 • Claudia Gutiérrez-Antonio2 • Julio Armando De Lira-Flores2 •
José Marı́a Ponce-Ortega1

Received: 13 July 2016 / Accepted: 24 January 2017 / Published online: 7 February 2017
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Abstract There are great challenges to replace fossil fuels List of symbols
by biofuels, including the development of efficient tech-
nologies and adequate strategic planning. For the manu-
facture of biofuels at the industrial scale, there is a need to Sets
optimize the overall associated supply chain. Among bio- a Aviation fuel markets
fuels, the global market for the aviation biofuel has i Cultivation sites used to obtain raw materials
increased drastically, mainly due to the forecasted growth i1 Processing sites used to produce the aviation biofuel
of the aviation sector. Nevertheless, the supply chain for and by-products
the aviation biofuel has specific characteristics, which are j Type of by-product obtained through each processing
different from the case of bioethanol and biodiesel. route
Therefore, this paper presents a general optimization m Type of raw material
approach for optimizing the supply chain of aviation bio- r Processing routes
fuels. A case study is presented accounting for the pro-
jection of the Mexican government for implementing the Continuous positive variables
use of aviation biofuel in the airport network. The appli- ANew
i,m New area available for cultivating
cation of the proposed approach generates very interesting feedstock
solutions, which are grouped in a Pareto front; from these Ai,m Total area used for cultivating feedstock
results, it can be highlighted that the demand for aviation Bi Aviation biofuel in each processing
biofuel in the Mexican market can be satisfied with a gross facility
economic benefit of M US$ 1681 per year, and savings of bi,a Aviation biofuel sent from the i plant to
93% of carbon dioxide emissions. The generated infor- the a market
mation can contribute to the establishment of the sustain- BTCO2 Produced emission by aviation biofuel
able supply chain for aviation biofuels in Mexico. consumption
feedstock
Cost Feedstock cost
Keywords Biofuels  Aviation biofuel  Supply chain  Costprocessing Processing cost in biorefineries
Optimization  Mexican airport network Costtransportation Transportation cost
CapCost Capital cost
CMPCO2 Captured emissions through feedstock
& José Marı́a Ponce-Ortega cultivation
jmponce@umich.mx Fi,m Raw material m sent to the processing
1 plant i
Chemical Engineering Department, Universidad Michoacana
de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, 58060 Morelia, Michoacán, fi,i1,m Raw material m sent from the cultivation
Mexico site i to the processing site i1
2
Faculty of Chemistry, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, fri,m,r Raw material distributed in the
76010 Querétaro, Querétaro, Mexico processing routes into the biorefinery

123
1388 S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.

Profit Profit TBTi,a Tons of CO2 produced for each ton of

Pi,m Raw material production m in site i aviation biofuel transported from site i to
PMPCO2 Emissions for raw material processing market a
Si,j,i1 By-products j from the plant i to the TSPi,j,i1 Tons of CO2 produced for each ton of by-
market i1 product j transported from site i to market i1
Sales Sales UCfeedstock
i,m Unitary cost of raw material m cultivated in
SPCO2 Emissions for consuming by-products the site i
TBa Aviation biofuel in the different markets UCprocessing
i,m,r Unitary cost for processing raw material
TSj,i1 Total by-product j in the different m in the pant i through the route r
markets i1 UTCfeedstock
i,i1,m Unitary cost for transporting raw materials
TMPCO2 Emissions for raw material transportation from site i to processing site i1
TBTCO2 Emissions for aviation biofuel UTCbiojetfuel
i,a Unitary cost for transporting aviation
transportation biofuel from site i to market a
TSPCO2 Emissions for by-products transportation UTCby-product
i,j,i1 Unitary cost for transporting by-product
TOTALCO2 Total emissions j from site i to market i1
UCroute
i,m,r Unit cost for process equipment for the
Binary variables route r
yi Binary variable for the existence or non-existence of UCbiojetfuel
a Unitary price of aviation biofuel in the
processing plant in the site i market a
zr,i Binary variable for the use or not use of r processing UCby-product
j,i1 Unitary price of by-product j in the market i1
route in the site i am,r,j Conversion factor for raw material m to by-
product j
Parameters bi,m Factor yield for crop m in the site i
AExist
i,m Current area used for cultivating feedstock /m,r Conversion factor for raw material m to
Amax
i,m Maximum area available for cultivating aviation biofuel through each processing
feedstock route r
Bmin
i Minimum production capacity of aviation
biofuel in the i processing plant
Bmax
i Maximum production capacity of aviation Introduction
biofuel in the i processing plant
BTa Tons of emissions produced for each Nowadays the main energy sources are fossil fuels, whose
consumed ton of aviation biofuel in each reserves are uncertain to satisfy the future energy demand;
airport a in addition, the increment in the concentration of green-
CMPi,m Tons of CO2 captured for each hectare house gas (GHG) emissions has contributed to the global
cultivated of raw material m in the site i warming problem (Sanchez-Ramirez et al. 2016). The use
DBmax
a Maximum demand of aviation biofuel in of biofuels is an alternative to satisfy the energy require-
the market a ments and reduce the GHG emissions. Today the most
DSmax
j,i1 Maximum demand of by-product j in the known biofuels are bioethanol and biodiesel; however,
sitei aviation biofuel (i.e., biofuel for aviation) is an attractive
frmin
i,m,r Minimum flowrate of raw material for each option to replace the fuel in airplanes, which has attracted
processing route lower attention. Recently, the International Air Transport
frmax
i,m,r Maximum flowrate of raw material for Association (IATA) has determined to reduce the GHG
each processing route emissions associated with the aviation. In this context, the
FCBi Fixed cost for processing plant in the site i IATA recommends to increase the use of aviation biofuel
FCroute
i,m,r Fixed cost for processing for the r route from 1 to 50% (Sepulveda-González 2012), in accordance
PMPi,m,r Tons of CO2 produced for each ton of raw with the maximum use of aviation fuel established in
material processed in the site i by the standard ASTM D7566. The use of aviation biofuel in
r route mixtures with fossil aviation fuel has been studied, and
SPj,i1 Tons of CO2 produced for each ton of by- several bioresources have been identified as attractive
product j consumed in each market i1 renewable raw materials (Hong et al. 2013).
TMPi,i1,m Tons of CO2 produced for each ton of raw Particularly, the strategic planning of the supply chain
material m transported from site i to associated with the aviation biofuel is an important task,
processing site i1 because this biofuel has very specific markets (airports). In

123
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico
this way, the storage and distribution centers are located
near to the airports, also the used bioresources must be
determined according to the available resources near to a
specific region; this point is very important since one of the
main costs associated with the production process of avi-
ation biofuel is regarding to the transportation of raw
materials and products. Therefore, the location of dis-
tributed biorefineries must be determined considering
simultaneously these aspects. In this context, recently
several optimization approaches for the strategic planning
for supply chains of biorefineries have been reported. Thus,
Santibañez-Aguilar et al. (2011) reported an optimization
formulation for the supply chain associated with distributed
biorefineries. Then, Santibañez-Aguilar et al. (2013)
incorporated a biorefinery-based on water hyacinth,
whereas Murillo-Alvarado et al. (2015) accounted for
residues from the tequila industry in Mexico. Moreover,
Moraes et al. (2014) implemented a study to determine the
socioeconomic aspects for the production of aviation bio-
fuel in Brazil, whereas Köhler et al. (2014) implemented a
similar analysis for the worldwide case. On the other hand,
a mixed-integer linear programing (MILP) formulation for
optimizing the supply chain associated with bioethanol as
fuel was reported by Dyken et al. (2010). Santibáñez-
Aguilar et al. (2014) proposed a multi-objective MILP
formulation for optimizing biofuel supply chains incorpo-
rating simultaneously economic and environmental
aspects. For the specific case of aviation biofuel, an anal-
ysis for several processing routes through different raw
materials was presented by Chiaramonti et al. (2014).
It should be noticed that none of the above-mentioned
works has addressed the optimal strategic planning of
supply chains of aviation biofuels. Therefore, in this paper
is presented a new optimization formulation for planning
the supply chain associated with aviation biofuel, consid-
ering the optimal selection of the raw materials (Jatropha
Curcas, Higuerilla and Camelina), processing technologies
(Hydrotreating, Fischer–Tropsch, Centia, Greasoline and
Bio-Synfining) as well as the site location for the pro-
cessing facilities; also, the optimal operation for the entire
supply chain is addressed, involving simultaneously eco-
nomic and environmental aspects. In spite of the different
approaches that have been reported for other biofuels, the
proposed optimization formulation is needed because the
case of aviation biofuel involves different characteristics
for consumers, production and distribution. A case study
from Mexico is presented in this paper; however, the pro-
posed model is general and it can be applied to other case
studies for aviation biofuel supply chains. The objective of
this paper is to propose alternatives for the supply chain of
aviation biofuel, simultaneously considering technical,
economic and environmental issues, whereas the scope of
this paper is to provide a simulation method that allows
1389
planning the supply chain to produce aviation biofuel,
involving the total or partial substitution of fossil fuel. In
this way, a potential solution for the environmental and
economic implications associated with the market of the
aviation fuel can be proposed.
Problem statement
The increasing world population as well as the new human
habits has increased the demand of fuels; specifically for
the aviation fuel an annual increase of 4% is expected,
while the production capacity is below that amount. Also,
the decreasing petroleum reserves and the global warming
problem, associated with the combustion of fossil fuels,
have motivated the use of alternative fuels. In this context,
the aviation biofuel has been proposed as an alternative to
replace the fossil fuel used in the aviation. Several types of
biomass have been investigated, and different bioconver-
sion technologies have been proposed; however, the opti-
mization of the supply chain associated with satisfying the
demand of aviation biofuel in a distributed system has not
been properly addressed. The aviation biofuel has associ-
ated implications that differ from other biofuels. This is
mainly due to the specific markets, which correspond to the
airports, the used feedstock and other raw materials
(mainly hydrogen); the combination of these issues repre-
sents an important transportation problem. Furthermore,
currently a proper infrastructure associated with the supply
chain for the aviation biofuel is not available. Therefore,
this paper proposes an optimization formulation that allows
maximizing the overall profit while minimizing the asso-
ciated greenhouse gas emissions in order to satisfy a given
demand. In this formulation, the type and amount of
feedstock, cultivation site, location, type and capacity for
the processing technologies, transportation and distribution
of raw materials and products can be selected.
Figure 1 shows schematically the addressed problem,
where the CO2 emissions are captured in the crops to be
transformed into biomass, through the photosynthesis
process. This biomass is used to produce aviation biofuel
and other by-products; when these are consumed, the CO2
emissions are released in the atmosphere, starting, in this
way, the cycle again. Through this cycle, it is possible to
produce renewable energy, and therefore, this can be a
sustainable process.
Methodology
In order to solve the addressed problem, a superstructure,
shown in Fig. 2, is proposed for the supply chain of avia-
tion biofuels. In this superstructure, cultivation sites for
123
1390 S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the addressed problem

different raw materials (Jatropha Curcas, Higuerilla and
Camelina) are considered; also different processing tech-
nologies (Hydrotreating, Fischer–Tropsch, Bio Synfining,
Centia and Greasoline) and locations for potential biore-
fineries are involved. There are also several by-products such
as non-condensable gases, LP gas, green diesel and naphtha.
Table 1 shows the data for the unit prices and costs used in
the mathematical model. The optimal solution must select
the best network for aviation biofuel production that maxi-
mizes the profit and minimizes the environmental impact.
The proposed model formulation is presented as follows.
Produced feedstock in the cultivation sites
The amount of feedstock produced in the cultivation site i
for the bioresource m (Pi,m) depends on the efficiency
factor (bi,m) and used area (Ai,m) as follows:
Pi;m ¼ bi;m Ai;m ; 8 i 2 I; m 2 M ð3Þ
The efficiency factor (bi,m) is determined by weather
conditions and land properties.
Distribution of feedstock

The feedstock m from any cultivating site i (Pi,m) can be

Cultivation field areas
distributed to any processing facility located in the site
i1(fi,i1,m):
The area used for cultivating (Ai,m) any bioresource (m) in X
site (i) is equal to the sum of the existing area used for Pi;m ¼ fi;i1;m ; 8 i 2 I; m 2 M ð4Þ
cultivating (AExist
i,m ) plus the new area needed to satisfy the i1

demands of aviation biofuel (ANewi,m ):

Bioresources in the processing facilities
Ai;m ¼ AExist New
i;m þ Ai;m ; 8 i 2 I; m 2 M ð1Þ
The total amount of feedstock m in the processing facility
The total area used for cultivating (Ai,m) must be lower located in the site i (Fi,m) is equal to the sum of all the
than the one available in the cultivating site i for the bioresources sent from different cultivating sites
bioresource m(Amax
i,m ):   X
Ai;m  Amax fi1;i;m : Fi;m ¼ fi1;i;m ; 8i 2 I; m 2 M ð5Þ
i;m ; 8 i 2 I; m 2 M ð2Þ
i1

123
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico 1391

Fig. 2 Superstructure for the supply chain of aviation biofuel

Distribution of the feedstock to different processing Produced by-products

routes
Each processing route has associated several value-added
Each bioresource m in the processing facility i (Fi,m) by-products (Si,j), which depend on the associated effi-
can be processed using different technological routes ciency factor (am,r,j):
route
(fi,m,r ): XX
route
X Si;j ¼ fi;m;r am;r;j 8 i 2 I; j 2 J ð8Þ
route m r
Fi;m ¼ fi;m;r ; 8 i 2 I; m 2 M ð6Þ
r
The processing efficiency factor (am,r,j) is determined for
each route according to the involved technologies.
Produced aviation biofuel
Distribution of the aviation biofuel
The total amount of produced aviation biofuel in the pro-
cessing site i (Bi) is equal to the feedstock m processed The total amount of produced aviation biofuel in the pro-
through the route r (froute
i,m,r ), which depends on the process-
cessing facility i (Bi) should be distributed to the different
ing efficiency (/m,r): markets (bi,a), which correspond to the airports:
XX X
Bi ¼ route
fi;m;r /m;r ; 8 i 2 I ð7Þ Bi ¼ bi;a ; 8 i 2 I ð9Þ
m r a

The processing efficiency factor (/m,r) is determined for Where bi,a corresponds to the flow of aviation biofuel
each route according to the technology considered. from the biorefinery located in the site i sent to the airport a.

123
1392 S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.

Table 1 Unit prices and costs

Product Price $/t Maximum demand of aviation biofuel in the different
used in the mathematical model
Aviation biofuel 870
markets
Green diesel 1044
The amount of aviation biofuel in the markets (TBa) must
Gases (C1-C2) 882
be lower than the maximum needed in each market
Gas LP 700
(DBmax
a ):
Naphtha 700
TBa  DBmax
a ; 8a 2 A ð13Þ
Raw material Cost
$/t
Maximum demand of by-products in the different
Jatropha Curcas 235.5
markets
Camelina 226.6
Higuerilla 217.7
The maximum amount of by-products (DSmax
j,i1 ) is deter-
Transportation cost, $/ 1.87
t km
mined as follows:
TSj;i1  DSmax
j;i1 ; 8 j 2 J; i1 2 I1 ð14Þ
Route Cost $/t

Processing cost
Greasoline 44.1 Costs
Fischer–Tropsch 36.8
Hydrotreating 22.1
The raw material cost (Costfeedstock) is equal to the pro-
duced aviation biofuel (Pi,m) times the unit processing cost
Bio-Synfining 29.4
(UCfeedstock
i,m ):
Centia 29.4 XX
feedstock
Cost ¼ Pi;m UCfeedstock
i;m ð15Þ
i m

Distribution of the by-products The unit cultivation cost for feedstock UCfeedstocki,m is a
function of the amount of fertilizer and water used; also the
The produced by-products (Si,j) can be distributed to dif- labor cost must be included, and the unit cost is considered
ferent markets (si,j,i1): constant and equal to the current market price per ton of seed for
X
Si;j ¼ si;j;i1 ; 8 i 2 I; j 2 J ð10Þ each crop. It should be noticed that these prices are subject to the
i1 volatility of the market; therefore, it is recommended to develop
a stochastic optimization approach to address this problem,
Where si,j,i1 corresponds to the flow of by-product j from
based on the presented model, in a future work.
the biorefinery located in the site i sent to the market i1.

Processing cost
Total aviation biofuel in the markets
The processing cost (Costprocessing) is equal to the sum of
The total aviation biofuel in the airport a (TBa) is equal to the processed raw materials (fri,m,r) through the different
the sum of the aviation biofuel coming from the different routes times the unit processing costs (UCprocessing
i,m,r ):
processing facilities (bi,a): XXX processing
X Costprocessing ¼ fri;m;r UCi;m;r ð16Þ
TBa ¼ bi;a ; 8 a 2 A ð11Þ i m r
i
The unit processing cost UCprocessing
i,m,r depends on the
considered technologies.

Total by-products in markets

Transportation costs
The total amount of by-products in the markets (TSj,i1) is
equal to the sum of the by-products sent from the different The transportation cost (Costtransportation) accounts for the
processing facilities (si,j,i1): transportation of raw materials plus the transportation of
X aviation biofuel and by-products, involving the corre-
TSj;i1 ¼ si;j;i1 ; 8 j 2 J; i1 2 I1 ð12Þ
sponding unit transportation costs (UTC):
i

123
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico 1393

XXX
Costtransportation ¼ fi;i1;m UTCfeedstock
i;i1;m
Sales
i i1 m
XX XXX
þ bi;a UTCbiojetfuel
i;a þ Si;j;i1 UTSbyproduc
i;j;i1 The total sales (Sales) are the sum of the sales of aviation
i a i j i1
biofuel multiplied by the aviation biofuel price in the
ð17Þ P
market ( aUCbiojetfuel
a TBa), plus the sum of the by-prod-
The transportation system considered in this work is by ucts multiplied by the by-product price in the
PP
road; then, the unit transportation cost depends on the market ( j i1UCbyproduct
j,i1 TSj,i1):
distances from one place to another, and it may vary X XX
Sales ¼ UCa biojetfuel
TBa þ UCbyproduc
j;i1 TSj;i1
depending on the type of substance and involved risk (the a j i1
aviation biofuel and by-products are flammable or
ð21Þ
explosive).

Capital cost for the processing facilities Economic objective function

In order to determinate whether a biorefinery should be The total profit (Profit) accounts for the sales (Sales) minus
installed or not, binary variables are included in the the sum of the costs of feedstock (Costfeedstock), processing
processing
mathematical model. The use of binary variables are rela- (Cost ), transportation (Costtransportation), and capital
ted to logical decisions; when a binary variable is equal to (CapCost):
one, a biorefinery should be installed, but if the value of the
binary variable is equal to zero the biorefinery is not Profit ¼ Sales  Costfeedstock  Costprocessing
ð22Þ
installed.  Costtransportation  CapCost
There is a need for binary variables (yi) for activating
the existence of the processing facilities, which are acti-
vated when the produced aviation biofuel (Bi) is greater Carbon dioxide emissions
than the minimum (Bmin i ) and lower than the maximum
(Bmax ) allowed capacities: The captured CO2 emissions during the feedstock cultiva-
i
tion (CMPCO2) depend on the cultivated area (Ai,m) and
Bmin max
i yi  Bi  Bi yi ; 8 i 2 I ð18Þ the unit of captured CO2 emissions for each bioresource m
Also, binary variables are needed for activating of pro- (CMPi,m):
XX
cessing routes (zi,m,r), which are activated when the pro- CMPCO2 ¼ Ai;m CMPi;m ð23Þ
cessed feedstock (fri,m,r) is greater than the minimum i m
(frmin max
i,m,r) and lower than the maximum (fri,m,r) amount
The parameter for the unit capture of CO2 emissions
allowed:
(CMPi,m) depends on the compositions of the seeds, and it
min max
fri;m;r zi;m;r  fri;m;r  fri;m;r zi;m;r 8 i 2 I; m 2 M; r 2 R must be experimentally measured.
ð19Þ The produced CO2 emissions for the transportation of
raw materials (TMPCO2) are equal to the transported raw
The capital cost for the processing facilities involves material from site i to site i1 (fi,i1,m) multiplied by the factor
three terms to adequately represent the economies of scale. for the unit transportation emissions (TMPi,i1,m):
First a base installation cost (FCBi ), which is independent of XXX
the plant size; this is due to the cost of legal permits, land TMPCO2 ¼ fi;i1;m TMPi;i1;m ð24Þ
i i1 m
and others. There is also a capital cost (FCroute i,m,r ) for each
route installed in the biorefinery, and finally the cost for the The unit factor for the emission associated with trans-
biorefinery size (Croute
i,m,r ) must be considered. Then, the
portation depends on the fuel (diesel in this work) con-
capital cost for the processing facilities involves the fixed sumed per kilometer and the amount of material
and operating parts of the costs as follows: transported from one place to another.
X XXX The emissions associated with the transportation of
CapCost ¼ FCBi yi þ FCroute
i;m;r zi;m;r aviation biofuel from the different processing facilities to
i i m r
XXX ð20Þ the markets (TBTCO2) is equal to the transported amount
þ UCroute
i;m;r fri;m;r (bi,a) times the unit factor for transportation of aviation
i m r
biofuel (TBTi,a):
The capital cost was annualized considering a useful life XX
of 20 years, and an interest rate of 15%. TBTCO2 ¼ bi;a TBTi;a ð25Þ
i a

123
1394 S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.

XX
The produced emissions for the transportation of by- SPCO2 ¼ TSj;i1 SPj;i1 ð29Þ
i m
products (TSPCO2) is equal to the transported by-products
(si,j,i1) times the unit transportation emissions (TSPi,j,i1): The unit parameter for the emissions SPj,i1 depends on
XXX
TSPCO2 ¼ si;j;i1 TSPi;j;i1 ð26Þ the carbon content in the by-products, and the combustion
i j i1 is considered complete.

The produced emissions associated with the processing Environmental objective function
of raw materials (PMPCO2) is equal to the processed
flowrate (fri,m,r) multiplied by the corresponding unit The total produced emissions associated with the entire supply
emissions (PMPi,m,r): chain (TOTALCO2) is obtained by summing the emissions
XXX associated with transportation, processing and use minus the
PMPCO2 ¼ fri;m;r PMPi;m;r ð27Þ captured emissions for the cultivation of raw materials:
i m r

The produced emissions associated with the use of

aviation biofuel (BTCO2) is equal to the used aviation
biofuel (TBa) times the unit emissions (BTa): Table 2 Economic results for the analyzed scenarios
X
BTCO2 ¼ TBa BTa ð28Þ Concept (M$/y) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
a
Feedstock cost 800 1000 9000 4000 2869
The unit emissions parameter (BTa) depends on the Processing cost 100 200 900 600 561
carbon content in the aviation biofuel, and the combustion Transportation cost 2000 5000 1000 2000 1809
is considered complete. Capital cost 100 200 2000 1000 998
The produced emissions associated with the use of by- Total sales 3200 4000 30,000 10,000 7919
products (SPCO2) is equal to the used by-products (TSj,i1) Profit 200 -3000 20,000 6000 1682
times the unit emissions factor (SPj,i1):

Fig. 3 Schematic solution for the solution of Case 1

123
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico 1395

Table 3 Aviation biofuel distribution for Case 1

Plant/market Distance from Tamaulipas (km) Demand (kt/y) Distributed (kt/y) % Satisfaction

Tamaulipas 0 35.6 35.6 100

Nuevo León 284 271 271 100
San Luis Potosı́ 332 17.4 17.4 100
Guanajuato 507 44.5 44.5 100
Zacatecas 516 14.4 14.4 100
Aguascalientes 518.9 18.8 18.8 100
Querétaro 523 17 17 100
Coahuila de Zaragoza 537 18.5 18.5 100
Hidalgo 634 1.53 1.53 100
Michoacán de Ocampo 652 21.7 21.7 100
Tlaxcala 670 3.58 3.58 100
Jalisco 684 390 390 100
Veracruz 688 54.9 54.9 100
Puebla 699 12.9 12.9 100
México 707 30.8 30.8 100
Distrito Federal 719 1210 540 45
Durango 803 10.8 0 0
Morelos 810 2.2 0 0
Colima 878 9.67 0 0
Nayarit 888 5.72 0 0
Guerrero 998 36.1 0 0
Chihuahua 1104 61.9 0 0
Oaxaca 1173 42.9 0 0
Tabasco 1184 41.3 0 0
Sinaloa 1261 73.1 0 0
Chiapas 1266 39 0 0
Campeche 1565 27.8 0 0
Baja California Sur 1703 140 0 0
Yucatán 1736 51.7 0 0
Quintana Roo 1758 626 0 0
Sonora 1796 52.7 0 0
Baja California 2323 164 0 0
Single point of processing and distribution (TAMAULIPAS)

TOTALCO2 ¼ TMPCO2 þ TBTCO2 þ TSPCO2 þ PMPCO2 that one of its main limitations is associated with the
þ BTCO2 þ SPCO2  CMPCO2 accuracy for the involved parameters.

ð30Þ
Thus, the optimization formulation is aimed at maxi-
mizing the profit (given in Eq. 22) and minimizing the
emissions (given in Eq. 30), subject to the rest of the
equations, which yield a multi-objective mixed-integer
linear programming (MILP) problem. To solve this multi-
objective problem, the epsilon constraint method was
implemented (see Santibañez-Aguilar et al. 2014). It is
important to mention that the proposed optimization for-
mulation can be easily solved; also, it should be noticed
Results
This section presents the obtained results of the Mexican
case to satisfy the demands of aviation fuel through bio-
fuels accounting for the available resources, cultivating
land and the markets that correspond to the existing air-
ports. Different scenarios are analyzed, considering dif-
ferent objectives and constraints. It is worth to mention

123
1396 S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.

Fig. 4 Schematic representation for the solution of Case 2

that the required data were obtained from reports by demand in all the considered markets, while the overall
PEMEX (2010), SAGARPA-SIAP (2011) and SEMAR- profit is maximized. The economic results for this scenario
NAT (2012). are shown in Table 2. The total sales for this scenario are
M$ 4000/y, whereas the total cost is M$ 7000/y, which is
Case 1: Maximum profit. First the case for maximum
constituted by 19% of feedstock cost, 2% of processing
profit was considered, without accounting for the emis-
cost, 76% of transportation cost and 3% of capital cost.
sions. The economic results for this scenario are shown
When the demand of aviation biofuel is completely sat-
in Table 2. The total sales for this scenario are M$
isfied, the contribution of transportation costs are greater
3200/y, whereas the total cost is M$ 3000/y, which is
than in the previous scenario. The schematic representa-
constituted by 31% by feedstock cost, 4% by processing
tion for this solution is shown in Fig. 4, where the main
cost, 59% by transportation cost and 6% by capital cost.
used raw materials are Jatropha Curcas and Higuerilla,
As can be seen, if maximum profit is the target, the
which are obtained from Tamaulipas. The involved
major contribution to the total cost is the transportation,
biorefineries are installed in Tamaulipas and Jalisco,
followed by feedstock cost. The schematic representation
whose capacities are 1.1 Mt/y in Tamaulipas and 1.7 Mt/y
for this solution is shown in Fig. 3, where the main raw
in Jalisco. The main markets where the aviation biofuel is
materials are Jatropha Curcas and Higuerilla, which are
distributed are all the states of México. Additional data
obtained from Tamaulipas. It is worth to mention that
for the supply chain associated with this scenario are
these bioresources have the major production potential in
shown in Tables 4 and 5. Results from this scenario make
Mexico, according to INIFAP (2016). The involved
evident that, in order to decrease the transportation costs,
biorefineries are installed in Tamaulipas, whose capacity
the aviation biofuel must be produced with the raw
is 1.5 Mt/y. The main markets where the aviation biofuel
materials that are cultivated near to the airport where it is
is distributed are Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, San Luis
going to be used.
Potosı́, Guanajuato, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Queré-
taro, Coahuila, Hidalgo, Michoacán, Tlaxcala, Jalisco, Case 3: Constrained solution A. This case considers
Veracruz, Puebla, México and México City. Additional maximizing the profit under the condition that all the states
data for the supply chain associated with this scenario of the country are considered as cultivation sites. In each
are shown in Table 3. state, there may be a processing plant having a maximum
production capacity and the minimum production capacity
Case 2: Full satisfaction for the demand in each mar-
equal to zero. In each processing plant, there may be up to
ket. This case considers the satisfaction for the full

123
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico 1397

Table 4 Processing and

Plant/market Distance from Jalisco (km) Demand (kt/y) Distributed (kt/y) % satisfaction
distribution from Jalisco
Aguascalientes 220.1 19 19 100
Baja California 2052 164 164 100
Baja California Sur 1140 140 140 100
Campeche 1673 28 0 0
Coahuila de Zaragoza 950 19 0 0
Colima 196 10 10 100
Chiapas 1373 39 0 0
Chihuahua 1167 62 0 0
Distrito Federal 537 1210 650 54
Durango 624 11 0 0
Guanajuato 272 45 45 100
Guerrero 775 36 36 100
Hidalgo 564 2 0 0
Jalisco 0 390 390 100
México 472 31 31 100
Michoacán de Ocampo 288 22 22 100
Morelos 566 2 2 100
Nayarit 206 6 6 100
Nuevo León 796 271 0 0
Oaxaca 997 43 0 0
Puebla 672 13 0 0
Querétaro 350 17 0 0
Quintana Roo 1858 626 0 0
San Luis Potosı́ 333 17 0 0
Sinaloa 687 73 73 100
Sonora 1354 53 53 100
Tabasco 999 41 41 100
Tamaulipas 684 36 0 0
Tlaxcala 646 4 0 0
Veracruz 799 55 0 0
Yucatán 1843 52 0 0
Zacatecas 341 14 0 0

five different processing routes, with different yields and
by-products. The markets are each state of the country,
and the amount produced of aviation biofuel is limited by
the demand for each state. The economic results for this
scenario are shown in Table 2. The total sales for this
scenario correspond to M$ 30,000/y, whereas the total
cost is M$ 10,000/y, which is constituted as 70% by
feedstock cost, 7% by processing cost, 8% by trans-
portation cost and 15% by capital cost. The schematic
representation for this solution is shown in Fig. 5, where
the main used feedstock are Jatropha Curcas and
Higuerilla, which are obtained from each state of México.
The biorefineries are installed in each state of México,
except in Baja California and Baja California Sur because
there is no available area for cultivating in these places.
The main markets where the aviation biofuel is distributed
are all the states of México. In this scenario, the raw
materials are cultivated in each state, being the feedstock
cost the major contribution to the total cost. An alternative
for this case will be the mixed use of waste oil, which also
will have a positive impact on the environment. These
results are consistent with the initiative of Airports and
Auxiliary Services of México, a government entity that
supplies both fossil and renewable aviation fuel to the
airports, which are promoting the development of supply
chains for biorefineries in each state.
Case 4: Constrained solution B. This case considers
determining the supply chain that meets the demand for
each of the markets in Mexico under the following con-
siderations: In each state, there may be a processing plant
having a maximum production capacity and the minimum

123
1398 S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.

Table 5 Processing and distribution from Tamaulipas

Plant/market Distance from Tamaulipas (km) Demand (kt/y) Distributed (kt/y) % Satisfaction

Aguascalientes 518.9 19 0 0
Baja California 2323 164 0 0
Baja California Sur 1703 140 0 0
Campeche 1565 28 28 100
Coahuila de Zaragoza 537 19 19 100
Colima 878 10 0 0
Chiapas 1266 39 39 100
Chihuahua 1104 62 62 100
Distrito Federal 719 1210 561 46
Durango 803 11 11 100
Guanajuato 507 45 0 0
Guerrero 998 36 0 0
Hidalgo 634 2 2 100
Jalisco 684 390 0 0
México 707 31 0 0
Michoacán de Ocampo 652 22 0 0
Morelos 810 2 0 0
Nayarit 888 6 0 0
Nuevo León 284 271 271 100
Oaxaca 1173 43 43 100
Puebla 699 13 13 100
Querétaro 523 17 17 100
Quintana Roo 1758 626 626 100
San Luis Potosı́ 332 17 17 100
Sinaloa 1261 73 0 0
Sonora 1796 53 0 0
Tabasco 1184 41 0 0
Tamaulipas 0 36 36 100
Tlaxcala 670 4 4 100
Veracruz 688 55 55 100
Yucatán 1736 52 52 100
Zacatecas 516 14 14 100

production capacity equal to zero. In each processing plant,
there may be up to five different processing routes, with
different yields and by-products. The markets are the dif-
ferent states of the country, and the amount of aviation
biofuel is equal to the demand for each state. The economic
results for this scenario are shown in Table 2. The total
sales for these scenarios are M$ 10,000/y, whereas the total
cost is M$ 7000/y, which is constituted as 55% by feed-
stock cost, 9% by processing cost, 22% by transportation
cost and 15% by capital cost. The schematic representation
for this solution is shown in Fig. 6, where the main used
raw materials are Jatropha Curcas and Higuerilla, which
are obtained from each state of Mexico. The biorefineries
are installed in each state of México, except in Baja
California and Baja California Sur because there is no
available land for cultivation. The main markets where the
aviation biofuel is distributed are all the states of México.
Pareto solution
In this case, the epsilon constraint method is applied to
obtain trade-off solutions for the profit and emissions; these
Pareto solutions are shown in Fig. 7. In this figure, the
solutions above the curve are infeasible, whereas the
solutions below the curve are suboptimal. This figure is
very useful for the decision makers to determine the
solution that best satisfy the needs of the specific case.

123
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico 1399

Fig. 5 Schematic representation for the solution of Case 3

Fig. 6 Schematic representation for the solution of Case 4

123
1400
Fig. 7 Pareto curve, profit
versus CO2 emissions
Fig. 8 Schematic representation for the solution of Case 5
Solution closest to the utopian point
Figure 7 shows the Pareto curve corresponding to the
production of the total demand for the aviation biofuel in
Mexico, where it is possible to locate the best solution (the
point closest to the utopian point). The utopian point is the
desired solution, but it is an unattainable point because this
is located into the infeasible area. The coordinates for this
123
S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.
utopian point are the maximum possible gain and the
minimum possible emissions, but these values cannot be
together because there are some constraints between them.
Therefore, to reduce the emissions there must be accepted a
level of deteriorating economic benefit; on the other hand,
an increase in the economic benefit is associated with an
increment in the emissions. All the points that are marked
in red color on the blue line are feasible and optimal
Optimal planning for the supply chain of biofuels for aviation in Mexico 1401

Table 6 Environmental results for case 5
CO2 emissions (kt/y)
Growing raw materials -23,170
Raw material transport
Aviation biofuel transport
By-product transport
Processing raw materials
Consumption aviation biofuel
By-products consumption
solutions (determined through the epsilon constraint
method), while any point located below the blue line is a
feasible solution but it can be improved. According to the
explanation presented above, the best feasible solution
(trade-off solution) is the nearest of the utopian point and
that on the blue line (point marked in green color).
Case 5: Trade-off solution. This case considers the
satisfaction for the full demand in all the considered mar-
kets through aviation biofuel, whereas the overall profit and
the environmental impact are optimized (Fig. 8). The
economic results for this scenario are shown in Table 2.
The total sales for this scenario are M$ 7919/y, whereas the
total cost is M$ 6237/y, which is constituted by 46% of
feedstock cost, 9% of processing cost, 29% of transporta-
tion cost and 16% of capital cost. The environmental
results for this scenario are shown in Table 6. The total
CO2 emissions captured by feedstock are 23,170 kt/y, the
emissions associated with transportation of aviation bio-
fuels are 9 kt/y, the emissions associated with processing
raw materials are 3585 kt/y and the emissions associated
with consumption of aviation biofuel and by-products are
10,645 and 10,721 kt/y, respectively, whereas the net
emissions are 1790 kt/y. The sum for all emissions can be
considered equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted to the atmosphere if the aviation fuel is produced
from petroleum (24,960 kt/y). Therefore, the production of
aviation biofuel from biomass decreases 93% of emissions
by the fuel consumption.
Conclusions
This paper has presented an optimization approach for the
supply chain associated with the new market of aviation
biofuel. The model incorporates several decision making
factors, including the optimal selection of the bioresources,
cultivation sites and location for the biorefineries as well as
the processing technologies. Also, the model incorporates
the optimal distribution and transportation of materials
through the supply chain. Two objective functions are
considered simultaneously, including the maximization of
the overall profit and the minimization of the associated
emissions.
0 A case study from Mexico was considered under several
9 scenarios and conditions. In this case study, the most
0 important factor for the supply chain is associated with the
3585 transportation of raw materials and products. The results
10,645 suggest that installing small processing facilities dis-
10,721 tributed through the supply chain is a good option, con-
sidering the economic and environmental points of view.
Usually, the best processing routes include Bio-synfining
and Centia. The best raw materials are Jatropha Curcas and
Higuerilla, whereas Camelina was the worst option.
Acknowledgements Financial support provided by CONACyT,
through Grant 239765, for the development of this project is grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
Chiaramonti D, Prussi M, Buffi M, Tacconi D (2014) Sustainable bio
kerosene: process routes and industrial demonstration activities
in aviation biofuels. Appl Energy 136:767–774
Dyken VS, Bakken BH, Skjelbred HI (2010) Linear mixed-integer
models for biomass supply chains with transport, storage and
processing. Energy 35(3):1338–1350
Hong DH, Tatang HS, Iman KR, Osuma F, Zarrah D, Mai XO (2013)
A study on developing aviation biofuel for the tropics: produc-
tion process—experimental and theoretical evaluation of their
blends with fossil kerosene. Chem Eng Process 74:124–130
INIFAP (2016) National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and
Livestock. Bioenergetics in Mexico. http://www.agromapas.
inifap.gob.mx/potencialproductivo/index.html. Accessed 07
July 2016
Köhler J, Walz R, Marscheder-Weidemann F, Thedieck B (2014)
Lead markets in 2nd generation biofuels for aviation: a
comparison of Germany, Brazil and the USA. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 40:716–726
Moraes M, Nassar AM, Moura P, Leal R, Cortez LAB (2014) Jet
biofuels in Brazil: sustainability challenges. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 40:716–726
Murillo-Alvarado PE, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Ponce-Ortega JM, Castro-
Montoya AJ, Serna-González M, Jiménez L (2015) Multi-
objective optimization of the supply chain of biofuels from
residues of the tequila industry in Mexico. J Clean Prod
108:422–441
PEMEX (2010) Memory of work 2010. Annual report for the
Mexican Ministry of Oil. Mexico City. Mexico. www.pemex.
com/files/content/Version_completa_memoria_de_labores_
2010.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
SAGARPA-SIAP (2011) Mexican System of Information about
Agriculture and Fishing. Advance of planting and harvesting for
Mexico. Mexico City, Mexico. www.siap.gob.mx/index.php?op
tion=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=347. Accessed 01
Feb 2016
Sanchez-Ramirez E, Quiroz-Ramirez JJ, Segovia-Hernandez JG,
Hernandez S, Ponce-Ortega JM (2016) Economic and environ-
mental optimization of the biobutanol purification process. Clean
Technol Environ Policy 18(2):395–411

123
1402
Santibañez-Aguilar JE, González-Campos JB, Ponce-Ortega JM,
Serna-González M, El-Halwagi MM (2011) Optimal planning of
a biomass conversion system considering economic and envi-
ronmental aspects. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(14):8558–8570
Santibañez-Aguilar JE, Ponce-Ortega JM, González-Campos JB,
Serna-González M, El-Halwagi MM (2013) Synthesis of
distributed biorefining networks for the value-added processing
of water hyacinth. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1(2):284–305
Santibañez-Aguilar JE, González-Campos JB, Ponce-Ortega JM,
Serna-González M, El-Halwagi MM (2014) Optimal planning
and site selection for distributed multiproduct bio refineries
123
S. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a et al.
involving economic, environmental and social objectives.
J Clean Prod 65:270–294
SEMARNAT (2012) Mexican Ministry of Environmental and Natural
Resources. Forest almanac 2011. General council for social
communication, General direction for land and forest manage-
ment. México City, México. www.semarnat.gob.mx/tramites/
gestionambiental/forestalsuelos/Anuarios/Anuario%20Forestal%
202006.pdf. Accessed 05 Feb 2016
Sepulveda-González I (2012) Jet biofuel. Production of energy-
related crops for commercial aircraft. Rev Mex Cienc Agrı́c
3(3):579–594