biodiesel literature review

Economic and Sustainability of Biodiesel Production—A Systematic Literature Review

As Earth’s fossil energy resources are limited, there is a growing need for renewable resources such as biodiesel. That is the reason why the social, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels became an important research topic in the last decade. Depleted stocks of crude oil and the significant level of environmental pollution encourage researchers and professionals to seek and find solutions. The study aims to analyze the economic and sustainability issues of biodiesel production by a systematic literature review. During this process, 53 relevant studies were analyzed out of 13,069 identified articles. Every study agrees that there are several concerns about the first-generation technology; however, further generations cannot be price-competitive at this moment due to the immature technology and high production costs. However, there are promising alternatives, such as wastewater-based microalgae with up to 70% oil content, fat, oils and grease (FOG), when production cost is below 799 USD/gallon, and municipal solid waste-volatile fatty acids technology, where the raw material is free. Proper management of the co-products (mainly glycerol) is essential, especially at the currently low petroleum prices (0.29 USD/L), which can only be handled by the biorefineries. Sustainability is sometimes translated as cost efficiency, but the complex interpretation is becoming more common. Common elements of sustainability are environmental and social, as well as economic, issues.

• Related Documents

Transformative Practices to Support First-Generation College Students as Academic Learners: Findings From a Systematic Literature Review

Cultural sensitivity in sámi tourism: a systematic literature review in the finnish context.

The use of Sámi cultures in the Finnish tourism business has been problematic for many decades. The aim of this article is to explore how the notion of cultural sensitivity could help to find alternative approaches and new solutions to this situation, especially for Sámi tourism. For this purpose, a systematic literature review method was used to examine and describe how previous academic literature has approached the issue of cultural sensitivity in the Finnish context. While the concept has not been used in tourism research in Finland, previous discussions have focused on questions of respect, cultural sustainability, cultural carrying capacity, cultural representations and cultural identity in tourism contexts. Simultaneously, research in other fields of study has drawn attention to the importance of healing, reconciliation and recognition for Sámi cultures. Reviewing the social work and pedagogy literature indicates how the idea of cultural sensitivity can enrich the search for more responsible ways of thinking, doing and researching tourism. In sum, the article calls for future research, theoretical conceptualization and practical application of cultural sensitivity that emphasizes recognition of and respect for cultural differences.

Unlocking the social domain in sustainable development

Purpose – Beginning with a multitude of differing definitions and theories of CSR and sustainability, an analysis of the effects and impacts of the social domain to remain an untapped resource to strengthen and merge the practice of sustainable development. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Utilizing a systematic review of literature between 1977 and 2013 about CSR and sustainability definitions and theories to reveal knowledge fragmentation in the use of the social domain and its implications within sustainable development. Findings – Identifies the gaps of the social domain in sustainable development and raises awareness to advance sustainable development beyond current sustainable development strategies, initiatives and practices. The pertinent publications from the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the systematic literature review were analyzed to determine how the social domain is used and interpreted in CSR and sustainability. Based upon the findings, four themes represent the social domain as socio-economics, stakeholders, societal well-being and social sustainability with suggestions for further research. Research limitations/implications – The systematic literature review searched one academic search engine and focussed on journals and books written in English. Originality/value – The contribution of the paper highlights, first, how an underdeveloped social domain can contribute toward multiple meanings of sustainable development and the social domain’s untapped capacity to develop a clearer standard definition of sustainable development and second, the potential to advance competitive advantage for corporations and governments.

Public Participation in the Social Science: A Systematic Literature Review

Public participation is the right and obligation of citizens to contribute to development by contributing to initiative and creativity. Public participation has also attracted a lot of attention from academia as a concept of public policy. The authors conducted a systematic literature review of published articles in the social sciences to enhance our understanding of public participation. Some of the main issues are explained in this area through the NVIVO 12 plus software that qualitative analysis tool. The main issues are community, development, government, information, and interests. This article raises several propositions on the matter. This article suggests some new topics for further research.

Economic Aspects and Sustainability of Ethanol Production—A Systematic Literature Review

Meeting the increasing global energy demand in a sustainable way is a major challenge for humanity. One of the solutions in the transportation sector is ethanol, which is currently the only economically viable direct fuel substitute. In addition to the first-generation technology, which provides the vast majority of production, better results can be continuously realized by using advanced technologies. This study aims to investigate the economic aspects and sustainability issues of ethanol production with a systematic literature review. During the selection process, 64 studies from a total of 16,141 identified articles were analyzed in-depth. There is a consensus that first-generation production methods cannot result in a long-term solution. However, advanced technologies are currently immature, and ethanol production is more expensive with them. The use of wastes/residues and coproducts can improve both the economic outlook and sustainability of the advanced technologies. Overall, the newer generations of technological advancements are constantly improving the environmental performance, whereas the economic performance is deteriorating. Considering low oil prices (0.36 USD/L), none of the ethanol production methods can be competitive on a purely cost basis. This increases the importance of coproducts (further processing and more valuable coproducts). Regarding sustainability, a complex analysis is essential, which must cover at least the environmental, social, and economic aspects. At the methodology level, a complex life cycle analysis seems to be the best tool, as it can take into account these relevant aspects (environmental, economic, and social).

LIVING LAB FOR DIGITAL LITERACY AND ACTIVE AGEING. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Social sustainability in the age of digitalization: a systematic literature review on the social implications of industry 4.0, techno-economic analysis of biodiesel production from microbial oil using cardoon stalks as carbon source.

Today one of the most interesting ways to produce biodiesel is based on the use of oleaginous microorganisms, which can accumulate microbial oil with a composition similar to vegetable oils. In this paper, we present a thermo-chemical numerical model of the yeast biodiesel production process, considering cardoon stalks as raw material. The simulation is performed subdividing the process into the following sections: steam explosion pre-treatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, lipid production, lipid extraction, and alkali-catalyzed transesterification. Numerical results show that 406.4 t of biodiesel can be produced starting from 10,000 t of lignocellulosic biomass. An economic analysis indicates a biodiesel production cost of 12.8 USD/kg, thus suggesting the need to increase the capacity plant and the lipid yield to make the project economically attractive. In this regard, a sensitivity analysis is also performed considering an ideal lipid yield of 22% and 100,000 t of lignocellulosic biomass. The biodiesel production costs related to these new scenarios are 7.88 and 5.91 USD/kg, respectively. The large capacity plant combined with a great lipid yield in the fermentation stage shows a biodiesel production cost of 3.63 USD/kg making the product competitive on the current market of biofuels by microbial oil.

Determinants of Energy Efficient Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review

Engaging firms to generate and adopt energy efficient innovation is crucial for balancing energy needs for sustainable development. In addition, a reduction in energy consumption can address environmental problems and lower production costs by reducing materials and/or energy costs and costs related to compliance with regulations. Considering the lack of systematic reviews focused on the determinants of energy efficient innovation, we address this gap and set forth to enhance the body of knowledge in the field of energy efficient innovation. To achieve the research aim, a systematic literature review and qualitative content analysis were conducted. This study offers two contributions. First, the study distinguishes the determinants of energy efficient innovation in three levels: micro-level, meso-level, and macro-level. According to the findings, the following determinants of energy efficient innovation are highlighted at the micro-level: (1) cost savings; (2) previous experience; (3) technological capabilities; (4) green capabilities; (5) innovation capabilities; (6) knowledge development; (7) organizational innovations; (8) financial resources; (9) investment in tangible assets. Meanwhile, the determinants are distinguished at the meso-level: (1) competitive pressure; (2) customer and provider pressure; (3) external knowledge cooperation; (4) social pressure; (5) voluntary agreements. Finally, the determinants are disclosed at the macro-level: (1) government subsidies; (2) current or future regulation. Second, the study provides insights on the determinants of energy efficient innovation and sets an agenda for future research. The study demonstrates the need for further investigations on the drivers of energy efficient innovation as compared to general eco-innovation.

PROGRAMA NACIONAL DE PRODUÇÃO E USO DO BIODIESEL: divergências sobre os resultados sociais da política de biocombustíveis

Um dos principais objetivos do Programa Nacional de Produção e Uso do Biodiesel (PNPB) tem sido desenvolver aagricultura familiar, através de incentivos fiscais às usinas produtoras de biodiesel que adquirem matérias-primas desse segmento. Este trabalho faz um breve levantamento das principais discussões em torno dos resultados sociais que o programa vem apresentando e conclui que mesmo o Estado mobilizando diversos agentes para atuarem em favor do eixo social, não há consenso em relação aos ganhos efetivos do programa no tocante a esse aspecto, tampouco desenvolvimento das regiões Norte e Nordeste como resultadoda implantação da política de biodiesel.Palavras-chave: PNPB, biodiesel, eixo social, agricultura familiar.NATIONAL PROGRAM OF BIODIESEL PRODUCTION AND USE: divergences on the social results of the biodiesel policyAbstract: One of the major objectives of the National Program of Biodiesel Production and Use has been the development of the family farm, through tax incentives for the biodiesel producers, which acquire raw material from this segment. This paper makes a survey of the main debates about the social results that have been presented by the program, concluding that even the State using their means in favor of the social side, there is no consensus on the program achievements at this point, nor the development of the North and Northeast regions as a result of the biodiesel policy.Key words: PNPB, biodiesel, social axis, family farming.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

Sustainable biodiesel generation through catalytic transesterification of waste sources: a literature review and bibliometric survey

First published on 10th January 2022

Sustainable renewable energy production is being intensely disputed worldwide because fossil fuel resources are declining gradually. One solution is biodiesel production via the transesterification process, which is environmentally feasible due to its low-emission diesel substitute. Significant issues arising with biodiesel production are the cost of the processes, which has stuck its sustainability and the applicability of different resources. In this article, the common biodiesel feedstock such as edible and non-edible vegetable oils, waste oil and animal fats and their advantages and disadvantages were reviewed according to the Web of Science (WOS) database over the timeframe of 1970–2020. The biodiesel feedstock has water or free fatty acid, but it will produce soap by reacting free fatty acids with an alkali catalyst when they present in high portion. This reaction is unfavourable and decreases the biodiesel product yield. This issue can be solved by designing multiple transesterification stages or by employing acidic catalysts to prevent saponification. The second solution is cheaper than the first one and even more applicable because of the abundant source of catalytic materials from a waste product such as rice husk ash, chicken eggshells, fly ash, red mud, steel slag, and coconut shell and lime mud. The overview of the advantages and disadvantages of different homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysts is summarized, and the catalyst promoters and prospects of biodiesel production are also suggested. This research provides beneficial ideas for catalyst synthesis from waste for the transesterification process economically, environmentally and industrially.

1 Introduction

Biodiesel is a renewable and clean energy source and a mixture of alkyl esters got through the transesterification of several renewable resources such as animal fats and edible vegetable oils such as palm oil, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil and algal oil. It has qualities that are almost identical to petro-derived diesel and may thus be used in diesel engines with minor modifications. It's also biodegradable, non-toxic, and emits fewer hazardous pollutants than traditional petro-diesel. Nevertheless, the high cost of resources accounts for about 88% of the total biodiesel generation cost. 4 Hence, non-edible oil feedstock for biodiesel generation, such as waste cooking oil, natural fat, jatropha oil, waste grease and micro-algae, has gained a significant interest in recent years. 5 These feedstocks are difficult to handle because they mainly have water and high free fatty acid (FFA) contents, which require pretreatment for commercially acceptable conversion efficiency 6 in the presence of a suitable catalyst. 7 Another vital phase in the transesterification process is the selection of the catalyst that defines the cost of production, leading to the economic obstacle. The catalyst is the kingpin in the transesterification reaction and as seen in Fig. 1 , from 1970 to 2021, there were 2260 articles published in the WoS journals using biodiesel and catalyst in the title search. The number of publications and citations is growing rapidly from 2003, and the total link strength, which specifies the total strength of the co-authorship links of a given country with other countries, was also provided. It can be seen that the top ten most active countries with the highest total link strength in sequence are Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, China, Australia, Vietnam, Nigeria, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Alcoholysis or transesterification reactions with a base, acid, enzyme, and other catalysts were used for biodiesel production. 8 Biocatalysts and chemical catalysts are being examined, and both have their benefits and drawbacks. These catalysts are reported to be environmentally friendly and budget-friendly materials in industrial uses. 9 Chemical catalysts comprise homogeneous factors (acid or alkali), heterogeneous agents (solid alkali or acid catalyst), supercritical fluids (SCFs) and heterogeneous nanostructured catalysts. 9 Homogeneous catalysts can cause complications in biodiesel production, such as saponification of the feedstock by which vast quantity of by-products such as undesirable soap was produced by the reaction of the catalyst with the FFA, which then prevents the splitting of the FAME and glycerol and reduces the catalyst. 7 Although transesterification with homogeneous catalysts is easy and quick, it has drawbacks in catalyst separation, reusability, and renewable resources. 10

The context knowledge shows the growing significance of biodiesel processing, and the literature review below reveals the scarcity of scientometric research in this exciting field (see Table 1 ). The current research aims to summarize the feasibility and the challenges of biodiesel production using various heterogeneous and homogeneous catalytic processes from different waste feedstocks. The Web of Science (WOS) database was used to conduct the bibliometric study. Catalyst promoters' importance and contribution to biodiesel generation have not been adequately examined yet. There was no match for the four words of biodiesel, catalyst, promoter and review at the topic search of the WOS website. Built upon the favorable properties of catalysts and the importance of non-noble metal promoters in the transesterification process, this study also aims to gather information on synthesizing non-noble promoters supported on various organic and inorganic metal oxides to get a high biodiesel yield.

2 Biodiesel and its application

The application of biodiesel has been noticeably increasing during the last decades. As seen in Fig. 2 , biodiesel applications had risen from 7.3 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 1990 to 87.1 mtoe in 2020. The Renewable Fuel Standard, which was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, was the first to mandate the use of specific biofuel amounts. The goal was to use 4 billion gallons of renewables in transportation fuels in 2006 to increase their percentage over time. The lessening of the country's reliance on oil has been the driving concept of biofuel programmes. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set a goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20% over the following ten years. The 2008 Biomass Program has two essential purposes. The first is, by 2030, to reduce gasoline use by 30% as compared to 2004 levels. Second, corn-derived ethanol is used to generate cellulosic ethanol. 23 Algal biomass has been used as food and feed supplements for humans and animals, fertilisers in agriculture, nutritional supplements and medication in the pharmaceutical industry, and phycocolloids in the phycocolloid industry. 24,25 Higher prices for animal feeds have resulted from the growing use of agricultural commodities for biofuels; nevertheless, the more significant substitution of co-products for conventional feedstuffs in feed rations mitigates the input cost increases experienced by livestock and poultry farmers. In the next ten years, growth in agricultural commodities for biofuels is likely to continue. However, at a slower pace in major producing nations, government-imposed grain usage restrictions for biofuels are achieved, and new non-agricultural feedstocks are commercialised. 26 A previous work, 27 which examines renewable portfolio standards in the electricity sector and can be extended to transportation fuels, provides a detailed explanation of how such factors affect energy price. As a result, domestic fuel consumption may fall, offsetting the rise in global fuel consumption. The presence of biofuel subsidies mitigates the impact of any increases in domestic fuel prices. 28 The replacement of feedstocks should be explored to reduce biofuel synthesis or operating costs. Waste cooking oil and waste animal fat, for example, are viewed as preferable feedstocks for biodiesel production compared to edible vegetable oil since they are both inexpensive and plentiful. Furthermore, as seen in Fig. 3 , biodiesel has been used in an inclusive variety of applications such as bus 29,30 and rail 31,32 transportations, commercial steamships, 33–35 heavy trucks, 36,37 power systems such as generators, 38–40 agricultural machinery, 41–43 heating oil in domestic 44–46 and commercial 47–49 boilers, and aircraft. 50–52 Thus, biodiesel has been gaining more attention as a resource for the growing demand from several industrial sections because of its numerous advantages over fossil fuels.

3 Sources of biodiesel

3.1 edible vegetable oil, 3.2 non-edible vegetable oil, 3.3 animal fat, 3.4 waste oil, 4 catalysts for biodiesel production, 4.1 homogeneous catalysts.

Homogeneous chemical catalysts have some merits, such as easy activity optimization, high turnover frequency and selectivity, and a high reaction rate. 141,142 The most usual homogeneous catalysts used for transesterification reactions are sodium methoxide (CH 3 ONa), sodium (NaOH) and potassium (KOH) hydroxides. Using CH 3 ONa as catalysts is expensive but more applicable than KOH and NaOH compounds. CH 3 ONa was reported to be the best active basic catalyst, which prompted noble phase separation. 143 Further, CH 3 ONa will help to avoid the water and soap formation. 144 Two mechanisms are convoluted in the transesterification process, dependent on whether acid catalysts or basic catalysts are applied, which are discussed below.

4.2 Acidic catalysts

Fig. 7 illustrates the mechanisms of transesterification reactions of oil with acid catalysts for monoglycerides, and it can be extended to di- and triglyceride. 163 The carbonyl group protonation of the ester results in carbocation II, which, after nucleophilic alcohol strike, creates the tetrahedral intermediate III, which reduces glycerol for the new ester IV formation and catalyst H + regeneration. Transesterification reaction via acid catalysts is more applicable for unrefined or waste oils, but the downside is that acidic catalytic samples are suggestively less active than alkali ones. 164 Moreover, the ratio of methanol to oil in the transesterification process with acid catalysts is high with a low reaction rate; therefore, these catalysts are not gaining much attention as basic catalysts. 165 Even though, because of the existence of FFAs in high quantity in such oils and fat, homogeneous alkaline catalysts are not recommended. To solve this issue, free fatty acids are firstly esterified to FAME ( Fig. 8 ) using an acid catalyst 127 and thereafter, the transesterification reaction is implemented, usually by employing alkaline catalysts. In the pre-esterification technique, it is required to separate the esterified oil and the homogeneous acid catalyst, which is the principal disadvantage of this technique. This issue can be handled with the application of a heterogeneous acid catalyst. 166

4.3 Basic catalyst

The strong base (NaOH or KOH) catalysed through a homogenous transesterification process has certain constraints, such as product separation, which leads to increased biodiesel production costs. 11 The method involved numbers of washings and purification stages to sustain the specified condition. It was reasonably challenging to eliminate the K/Na residues lasting in the product, and the split of glycerin also caused practical experiments. The whole process cost might be increased using a higher amount of water in the washing step. 199 These factors indicate that using basic or acid heterogeneous catalysts, or better yet, a heterogeneous catalyst with acid and basic characteristics, may result in a more environmentally friendly and less expensive biodiesel manufacturing process. The triglycerides are transesterified at the basic internal sites (–O − ), whereas the free fatty acids are esterified at the acid exterior sites (–H + ). 200

4.4 Organometallic catalysis

4.5 enzymatic catalysis.

The most common method of decreasing free fatty acid of feedstocks such as oil and fat is the pre-esterification of free fatty acid by homogeneous acid catalysts before utilizing base catalyst transesterification reaction. 127,129 In this technique, it is necessary to discrete the homogeneous acid catalyst from oil which is the key disadvantage of this method. 233 In general, all homogeneous catalysts are linked with some other drawbacks, which might escalate the production cost because of wastewater emission and separation steps. 234 The product of glycerin after transesterification reaction is low when a homogeneous catalyst is used. Then multi-stage purifications with the lengthy process are needed, 79,235 which negatively affects the total costs of the transesterification process. Furthermore, the transesterification reaction via homogeneous base catalysts is not suitable for several feedstocks. Homogeneous catalysts are environmentally harmful in comparison with heterogeneous ones because they are naturally hygroscopic. 236 Homogeneous catalysts are often highly selective but not particularly active or stable. On the other hand, heterogeneous catalysts are highly active (you can run them at higher temperatures because they are more robust), but they are not particularly selective.

4.6 Heterogeneous catalysts

4.7 rice husk ash, 4.8 eggshells, 4.9 fly ash, 4.10 red mud, 4.11 iron and steel slag, 4.12 coconut, 4.13 lime mud, 4.14 catalyst promoters, 4.15 biodiesel waste products, 4.16 prospects, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest, acknowledgements.

• V. B. Borugadda and V. V. Goud, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2012, 16 , 4763–4784  CrossRef   CAS .
• J. Boro, A. J. Thakur and D. Deka, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2011, 92 , 2061–2067  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Xu, W. Du, D. Liu and J. Zeng, Biotechnol. Lett. , 2003, 25 , 1239–1241  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• N. Mansir, Y. H. Taufiq-Yap, U. Rashid and I. M. Lokman, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2017, 141 , 171–182  CrossRef   CAS .
• D. Y. C. Leung, X. Wu and M. K. H. Leung, Appl. Energy , 2010, 87 , 1083–1095  CrossRef   CAS .
• I. Idowu, M. O. Pedrola, S. Wylie, K. H. Teng, P. Kot, D. Phipps and A. Shaw, Renew. Energy , 2019, 142 , 535–542  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Boonyuen, S. M. Smith, M. Malaithong, A. Prokaew, B. Cherdhirunkorn and A. Luengnaruemitchai, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2018, 177 , 925–929  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. C. Ong, H. H. Masjuki, T. M. I. Mahlia, A. S. Silitonga, W. T. Chong and T. Yusaf, Energy , 2014, 69 , 427–445  CrossRef   CAS .
• B. Thangaraj, P. R. Solomon, B. Muniyandi, S. Ranganathan and L. Lin, Clean Energy , 2019, 3 , 2–23  CrossRef .
• M. Gohain, A. Devi and D. Deka, Ind. Crops Prod. , 2017, 109 , 8–18  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. Jothiramalingam and M. K. Wang, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 2009, 48 , 6162–6172  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. E. Borges and L. Díaz, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2012, 16 , 2839–2849  CrossRef   CAS .
• K. Ramachandran, T. Suganya, N. Nagendra Gandhi and S. Renganathan, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2013, 22 , 410–418  CrossRef   CAS .
• P. Zhang, H. Liu, M. Fan, Y. Liu and J. Huang, Curr. Org. Chem. , 2016, 20 , 752–760  CrossRef   CAS .
• Z. I. Ishak, N. A. Sairi, Y. Alias, M. K. T. Aroua and R. Yusoff, Catal. Rev. , 2017, 59 , 44–93  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Singh and G. Kumar, J. Biochem. Technol. , 2018, 9 , 17  CAS .
• E. Ghedini, S. Taghavi, F. Menegazzo and M. Signoretto, Sustainability , 2021, 13 , 10479  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. E. Atabani, M. M. El-Sheekh, G. Kumar and S. Shobana, in Clean Energy for Sustainable Development , ed. M. G. Rasul, A. k. Azad and S. C. Sharma, Academic Press, 2017,  DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-805423-9.00017-x , pp. 507–556.
• C. Shimasaki, in Biotechnology Entrepreneurship , Academic Press, Boston, 2014,  DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-404730-3.00009-9 , pp. 113–138.
• J. R. Ziolkowska, in Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future , ed. J. Ren, A. Scipioni, A. Manzardo and H. Liang, Elsevier, 2020,  DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-815581-3.00001-4 , pp. 1–19.
• E. Sadeghinezhad, S. N. Kazi, A. Badarudin, C. S. Oon, M. N. M. Zubir and M. Mehrali, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2013, 28 , 410–424  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. F. Othman, A. Adam, G. Najafi and R. Mamat, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2017, 80 , 694–709  CrossRef .
• G. Sorda, M. Banse and C. Kemfert, Energy Policy , 2010, 38 , 6977–6988  CrossRef .
• N. Gaurav, S. Sivasankari, G. S. Kiran, A. Ninawe and J. Selvin, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2017, 73 , 205–214  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Neori, T. Chopin, M. Troell, A. H. Buschmann, G. P. Kraemer, C. Halling, M. Shpigel and C. Yarish, Aquaculture , 2004, 231 , 361–391  CrossRef .
• J. Popp, S. Kot, Z. Lakner and J. Oláh, J. Secur. Sustain. Issues , 2018, 7 , 477–493  Search PubMed .
• C. Fischer, Energy J. , 2010, 31 , 101–120  Search PubMed .
• D. Rajagopal, G. Hochman and D. Zilberman, Energy Policy , 2011, 39 , 228–233  CrossRef .
• B. Kegl, Bioresour. Technol. , 2008, 99 , 863–873  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• S. Bari, Appl. Energy , 2014, 124 , 35–43  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Zhang and A. L. Boehman, Energy Fuels , 2007, 21 , 2003–2012  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Kousoulidou, G. Fontaras, L. Ntziachristos and Z. Samaras, Fuel , 2010, 89 , 3442–3449  CrossRef   CAS .
• Anonymous, Dyna , 2014, 89 , 14–15  Search PubMed .
• P. H. Su, P. Geng, L. J. Wei, C. Y. Hou, F. Yin, G. T. Tomy, Y. F. Li and D. L. Feng, IET Intell. Transp. Syst. , 2019, 13 , 218–227  CrossRef .
• P. Su, Y. Hao, Z. Qian, W. Zhang, J. Chen, F. Zhang, F. Yin, D. Feng, Y. Chen and Y. Li, J. Environ. Sci. , 2020, 91 , 262–270  CrossRef   PubMed .
• K. Na, S. Biswas, W. Robertson, K. Sahay, R. Okamoto, A. Mitchell and S. Lemieux, Atmos. Environ. , 2015, 107 , 307–314  CrossRef   CAS .
• I. Olatunji, S. Wayne, M. Gautam, N. Clark, G. Thompson, D. McKain, P. Sindler and J. Nuszkowski, 2010.
• H. Bayındır, M. Z. Işık, Z. Argunhan, H. L. Yücel and H. Aydın, Energy , 2017, 123 , 241–251  CrossRef .
• S. M. Krishna, P. Abdul Salam, M. Tongroon and N. Chollacoop, Appl. Therm. Eng. , 2019, 155 , 525–533  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. R. Seraç, S. Aydın and C. Sayın, Energy Sources, Part A , 2020, 42 , 2316–2331  CrossRef .
• G. Topilin, A. Yakovenko, S. Uminski and J. Nowak, TEKA Kom. Mot. Energ. Roln.-OL PAN , 2009, 9 , 352–356  Search PubMed .
• G. Best, 2006.
• N. Alt and F. L. im VDMA eV, 2004.
• M. Eskiner, F. Bär, M. Rossner, A. Munack and J. Krahl, Fuel , 2015, 143 , 327–333  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Macor and P. Pavanello, Energy , 2009, 34 , 2025–2032  CrossRef   CAS .
• J. F. González-González, A. Alkassir, J. San José, J. González and A. Gómez-Landero, Biomass Bioenergy , 2014, 60 , 178–188  CrossRef .
• B. Bazooyar, A. Shariati and S. H. Hashemabadi, Energy Fuels , 2015, 29 , 6804–6814  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. N. Komariah, S. Arita, N. Novia, S. S. Wirawan and M. Yazid, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy , 2013, 5 , 052005  CrossRef .
• M. Mansourpoor and A. Shariati, Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. , 2014, 28 , 95–103  CrossRef   CAS .
• P. Arkoudeas, S. Kalligeros, F. Zannikos, G. Anastopoulos, D. Karonis, D. Korres and E. Lois, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2003, 44 , 1013–1025  CrossRef   CAS .
• D. M. Korres, D. Karonis, E. Lois, M. B. Linck and A. K. Gupta, Fuel , 2008, 87 , 70–78  CrossRef   CAS .
• W. E. R. Delgado, A. G. R. Meléndez, M. A. M. Betancourt, J. A. B. Páez and M. L. Gómez, Tecciencia , 2019, 14 , 53–60  CrossRef .
• O. M. Ali, R. Mamat, N. R. Abdullah and A. A. Abdullah, Renew. Energy , 2016, 86 , 59–67  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. E. Atabani, A. S. Silitonga, I. A. Badruddin, T. M. I. Mahlia, H. H. Masjuki and S. Mekhilef, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2012, 16 , 2070–2093  CrossRef .
• N. Kumar, V. Goel and S. R. Chauhan, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2013, 21 , 633–658  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. M. Mahmudul, F. Y. Hagos, R. Mamat, A. A. Adam, W. F. W. Ishak and R. Alenezi, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2017, 72 , 497–509  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. Lin, Z. Cunshan, S. Vittayapadung, S. Xiangqian and D. Mingdong, Appl. Energy , 2011, 88 , 1020–1031  CrossRef .
• A. Gaurav, S. Dumas, C. T. Q. Mai and F. T. T. Ng, Green Energy Environ. , 2019, 4 , 328–341  CrossRef .
• A. P. Ingle, A. K. Chandel, R. Philippini, S. E. Martiniano and S. S. da Silva, Symmetry , 2020, 12 , 256  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. N. Okoro, S. V. Belaboh, N. R. Edoye and B. Y. Makama, Synthesis , 2011, 1 , 3  Search PubMed .
• A. Ayoola, F. Hymore, C. A. Omonhinmin, O. Olawole, O. Fayomi, D. Babatunde and O. Fagbiele, Chem. Data Collect. , 2019, 22 , 100238  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. Karlsson, S. Ahlgren, M. Sandgren, V. Passoth, O. Wallberg and P.-A. Hansson, Biotechnol. Biofuels , 2016, 9 , 229  CrossRef   PubMed .
• I. Ayadi, H. Belghith, A. Gargouri and M. Guerfali, BioMed Res. Int. , 2019, 2019 , 3213521  Search PubMed .
• S. K. Bhatia, R. Gurav, T.-R. Choi, Y. H. Han, Y.-L. Park, J. Y. Park, H.-R. Jung, S.-Y. Yang, H.-S. Song and S.-H. Kim, Bioresour. Technol. , 2019, 289 , 121704  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• N. L. Boschen, M. G. P. Valenga, G. A. Maia, A. L. Gallina and P. R. P. Rodrigues, Ind. Crops Prod. , 2019, 140 , 111624  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Saydut, M. Z. Duz, C. Kaya, A. B. Kafadar and C. Hamamci, Bioresour. Technol. , 2008, 99 , 6656–6660  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• K. A. Younis, J. L. Gardy and K. S. Barzinji, Am. J. Appl. Chem. , 2014, 2 , 105–111  CAS .
• U. Rashid and F. Anwar, Energy Fuels , 2008, 22 , 1306–1312  CrossRef   CAS .
• C. Ilkılıç, S. Aydın, R. Behcet and H. Aydin, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2011, 92 , 356–362  CrossRef .
• N. Dizge and B. Keskinler, Biomass Bioenergy , 2008, 32 , 1274–1278  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. D'Cruz, M. G. Kulkarni, L. C. Meher and A. K. Dalai, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. , 2007, 84 , 937–943  CrossRef .
• P. Nakpong and S. Wootthikanokkhan, Renew. Energy , 2010, 35 , 1682–1687  CrossRef   CAS .
• D. Kumar, G. Kumar and C. Singh, Ultrason. Sonochem. , 2010, 17 , 555–559  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• S. Saka and D. Kusdiana, Fuel , 2001, 80 , 225–231  CrossRef   CAS .
• P. Šimáček, D. Kubička, G. Šebor and M. Pospíšil, Fuel , 2009, 88 , 456–460  CrossRef .
• S. Zullaikah, C.-C. Lai, S. R. Vali and Y.-H. Ju, Bioresour. Technol. , 2005, 96 , 1889–1896  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• S. Sinha, A. K. Agarwal and S. Garg, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2008, 49 , 1248–1257  CrossRef   CAS .
• G. Antolın, F. Tinaut, Y. Briceno, V. Castano, C. Perez and A. Ramırez, Bioresour. Technol. , 2002, 83 , 111–114  CrossRef .
• M. L. Granados, M. Z. Poves, D. M. Alonso, R. Mariscal, F. C. Galisteo, R. Moreno-Tost, J. Santamaría and J. Fierro, Appl. Catal., B , 2007, 73 , 317–326  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Yousuf, F. Sannino, V. Addorisio and D. Pirozzi, J. Agric. Food Chem. , 2010, 58 , 8630–8635  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• F. Sanchez and P. T. Vasudevan, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. , 2006, 135 , 1–14  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• P. Chand, C. V. Reddy, J. G. Verkade, T. Wang and D. Grewell, Energy Fuels , 2009, 23 , 989–992  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Kinney and T. Clemente, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2005, 86 , 1137–1147  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. I. Al-Widyan and A. O. Al-Shyoukh, Bioresour. Technol. , 2002, 85 , 253–256  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• E. Crabbe, C. Nolasco-Hipolito, G. Kobayashi, K. Sonomoto and A. Ishizaki, Process Biochem. , 2001, 37 , 65–71  CrossRef   CAS .
• C. Kaya, C. Hamamci, A. Baysal, O. Akba, S. Erdogan and A. Saydut, Renew. Energy , 2009, 34 , 1257–1260  CrossRef   CAS .
• T. Nguyen, L. Do and D. A. Sabatini, Fuel , 2010, 89 , 2285–2291  CrossRef   CAS .
• V. B. Veljković, M. O. Biberdžić, I. B. Banković-Ilić, I. G. Djalović, M. B. Tasić, Z. B. Nježić and O. S. Stamenković, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2018, 91 , 531–548  CrossRef .
• M. Gülüm and A. Bilgin, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2015, 134 , 456–464  CrossRef .
• V. K. Mishra and R. Goswami, Biofuels , 2018, 9 , 273–289  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Demirbas, A. Bafail, W. Ahmad and M. Sheikh, Energy Explor. Exploit. , 2016, 34 , 290–318  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. M. Gui, K. T. Lee and S. Bhatia, Energy , 2008, 33 , 1646–1653  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Demirbas, Biomass Bioenergy , 2009, 33 , 113–118  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. Kumar, P. Tiwari and S. Garg, Fuel , 2013, 104 , 553–560  CrossRef   CAS .
• N. Usta, B. Aydoğan, A. H. Çon, E. Uğuzdoğan and S. G. Özkal, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2011, 52 , 2031–2039  CrossRef   CAS .
• V. B. Veljković, S. H. Lakićević, O. S. Stamenković, Z. B. Todorović and M. L. Lazić, Fuel , 2006, 85 , 2671–2675  CrossRef .
• D. Royon, M. Daz, G. Ellenrieder and S. Locatelli, Bioresour. Technol. , 2007, 98 , 648–653  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• M. N. Nabi, M. M. Rahman and M. S. Akhter, Appl. Therm. Eng. , 2009, 29 , 2265–2270  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. S. Ramadhas, S. Jayaraj and C. Muraleedharan, Fuel , 2005, 84 , 335–340  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Morshed, K. Ferdous, M. R. Khan, M. S. I. Mazumder, M. A. Islam and M. T. Uddin, Fuel , 2011, 90 , 2981–2986  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. H. Ali, M. Mashud, M. R. Rubel and R. H. Ahmad, Procedia Eng. , 2013, 56 , 625–630  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Karmakar, S. Karmakar and S. Mukherjee, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2012, 16 , 1050–1060  CrossRef   CAS .
• U. Rashid, F. Anwar, B. R. Moser and G. Knothe, Bioresour. Technol. , 2008, 99 , 8175–8179  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• G. Kafuku and M. Mbarawa, Appl. Energy , 2010, 87 , 2561–2565  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. C. Meher, V. S. S. Dharmagadda and S. N. Naik, Bioresour. Technol. , 2006, 97 , 1392–1397  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• M. Naik, L. C. Meher, S. N. Naik and L. M. Das, Biomass Bioenergy , 2008, 32 , 354–357  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Demirbas and M. F. Demirbas, Algae energy: algae as a new source of biodiesel , Springer Science & Business Media, 2010  Search PubMed .
• M. N. Campbell, Guelph Engineering Journal , 2008, 1 , 2–7  Search PubMed .
• A. Kumar Tiwari, A. Kumar and H. Raheman, Biomass Bioenergy , 2007, 31 , 569–575  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. J. Berchmans and S. Hirata, Bioresour. Technol. , 2008, 99 , 1716–1721  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. Gupta, 2004.
• Y. C. Sharma and B. Singh, Fuel , 2008, 87 , 1740–1742  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. V. Ghadge and H. Raheman, Biomass Bioenergy , 2005, 28 , 601–605  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. V. Ghadge and H. Raheman, Bioresour. Technol. , 2006, 97 , 379–384  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• L. Canoira, R. Alcántara, M. Jesús García-Martínez and J. Carrasco, Biomass Bioenergy , 2006, 30 , 76–81  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Sandouqa and Z. Al-Hamamre, Renew. Energy , 2019, 130 , 831–842  CrossRef .
• C. W. Mohd Noor, M. M. Noor and R. Mamat, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2018, 94 , 127–142  CrossRef   CAS .
• P. M. F. d. Silva, E. O. Silva, M. d. S. C. Rêgo, L. M. d. R. Castro and A. I. Siqueira-Silva, Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. , 2019, 29 , 425–433  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Ramalingam, S. Rajendran, P. Ganesan and M. Govindasamy, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2018, 81 , 775–788  CrossRef   CAS .
• K.-H. Chung, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. , 2010, 16 , 506–509  CrossRef   CAS .
• C.-Y. Lin and C.-L. Fan, Fuel , 2011, 90 , 2240–2244  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. A. Pollardo, H.-s. Lee, D. Lee, S. Kim and J. Kim, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2018, 185 , 382–388  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Dikmen, G. Oyman and T. Sepici, 2004.
• A. Ribeiro, J. Carvalho, J. Castro, J. Araújo, C. Vilarinho and F. Castro, Mater. Sci. Forum , 2013, 730–732 , 623–629  CAS .
• G. R. Srinivasan and R. Jambulingam, J. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 2018, 11 , 157–166  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. S. Chen, T. Maneerung, D. C. W. Tsang, Y. S. Ok and C.-H. Wang, Chem. Eng. J. , 2017, 328 , 246–273  CrossRef   CAS .
• E. Lotero, Y. Liu, D. E. Lopez, K. Suwannakarn, D. A. Bruce and J. G. Goodwin, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 2005, 44 , 5353–5363  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Canakci and J. Van Gerpen, Trans. ASAE , 2001, 44 , 1429  CAS .
• M. G. Kulkarni and A. K. Dalai, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 2006, 45 , 2901–2913  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Marmesat, E. Rodrigues, J. Velasco and C. Dobarganes, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. , 2007, 42 , 601–608  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. J. Montefrio, T. Xinwen and J. P. Obbard, Appl. Energy , 2010, 87 , 3155–3161  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. N. Gebremariam and J. M. Marchetti, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2018, 168 , 74–84  CrossRef   CAS .
• G. Knothe and L. F. Razon, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. , 2017, 58 , 36–59  CrossRef .
• Y. Zhang, M. A. Dubé, D. D. McLean and M. Kates, Bioresour. Technol. , 2003, 90 , 229–240  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. Gaurav, F. T. T. Ng and G. L. Rempel, Green Energy Environ. , 2016, 1 , 62–74  CrossRef .
• J. Mattson, N. V. Burnete, C. Depcik, D. Moldovanu and N. Burnete, Fuel , 2019, 255 , 115753  CrossRef   CAS .
• O. Aboelazayem, M. Gadalla and B. Saha, Renew. Energy , 2018, 124 , 144–154  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. M. Smith, C. Oopathum, V. Weeramongkhonlert, C. B. Smith, S. Chaveanghong, P. Ketwong and S. Boonyuen, Bioresour. Technol. , 2013, 143 , 686–690  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. Saydut, A. Kafadar, F. Aydin, S. Erdogan, C. Kaya and C. Hamamci, 2016.
• N. Viriya-empikul, P. Krasae, B. Puttasawat, B. Yoosuk, N. Chollacoop and K. Faungnawakij, Bioresour. Technol. , 2010, 101 , 3765–3767  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• F. Ma and M. A. Hanna, Bioresour. Technol. , 1999, 70 , 1–15  CrossRef   CAS .
• V. Polshettiwar, R. Luque, A. Fihri, H. Zhu, M. Bouhrara and J.-M. Basset, Chem. Rev. , 2011, 111 , 3036–3075  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• R. A. Korus, D. S. Hoffman, N. Bam, C. L. Peterson and D. C. Drown, 1993.
• D. Bacovsky, W. Körbitz, M. Mittelbach and M. Wörgetter, IEA task , 2007, vol. 39, p. 9  Search PubMed .
• M. L. Testa, V. La Parola and A. M. Venezia, Catal. Today , 2014, 223 , 115–121  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. Guerreiro, J. E. Castanheiro, I. M. Fonseca, R. M. Martin-Aranda, A. M. Ramos and J. Vital, Catal. Today , 2006, 118 , 166–171  CrossRef   CAS .
• J. A. Melero, L. F. Bautista, G. Morales, J. Iglesias and D. Briones, Energy Fuels , 2009, 23 , 539–547  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. N. Gebremariam and J. M. Marchetti, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2018, 174 , 639–648  CrossRef   CAS .
• K. A. Shah, K. C. Maheria and J. K. Parikh, Energy Sources, Part A , 2016, 38 , 1470–1477  CrossRef   CAS .
• K. Malins, V. Kampars and J. Brinks.
• Y. C. Chen, D. Y. Lin and B. H. Chen, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. , 2017, 79 , 31–36  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. X. Han, W. Yan, C. T. Hung, Y. F. He, P. H. Wu, L. L. Liu, S. J. Huang and S. B. Liu, Korean J. Chem. Eng. , 2016, 33 , 2063–2072  CrossRef   CAS .
• I. Istadi, D. D. Anggoro, L. Buchori, D. A. Rahmawati and D. Intaningrum, in Basic Researches in the Tropical and Coastal Region Eco Developments , ed. H. Hady, H. Susanto and O. K. Radjasa, 2015, vol. 23, pp. 385–393  Search PubMed .
• C. O. Pereira, M. F. Portilho, C. A. Henriques and F. M. Z. Zotin, J. Braz. Chem. Soc. , 2014, 25 , 2409–2416  CAS .
• N. Narkhede and A. Patel, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 2013, 52 , 13637–13644  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. F. He, X. X. Han, Q. Chen and L. X. Zhou, Chem. Eng. Technol. , 2013, 36 , 1559–1567  CrossRef .
• Z. Ma, Z. Y. Shang, E. J. Wang, J. C. Xu, Q. Q. Xu and J. Z. Yin, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 2012, 51 , 12199–12204  CAS .
• W. L. Xie and D. Yang, Bioresour. Technol. , 2012, 119 , 60–65  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• W. L. Xie, H. Y. Wang and H. Li, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 2012, 51 , 225–231  CrossRef   CAS .
• W. L. Xie and D. Yang, Bioresour. Technol. , 2011, 102 , 9818–9822  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• L. L. Xu, W. Li, J. L. Hu, K. X. Li, X. Yang, F. Y. Ma, Y. N. Guo, X. D. Yu and Y. H. Guo, J. Mater. Chem. , 2009, 19 , 8571–8579  RSC .
• C. W. Wang, J. F. Zhou, W. Chen, W. G. Wang, Y. X. Wu, J. F. Zhang, R. A. Chi and W. Y. Ying, Energy Fuels , 2008, 22 , 3479–3483  CrossRef   CAS .
• W. Stoffel, F. Chu and E. H. Ahrens, Anal. Chem. , 1959, 31 , 307–308  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Alsalme, E. F. Kozhevnikova and I. V. Kozhevnikov, Appl. Catal., A , 2008, 349 , 170–176  CrossRef   CAS .
• N. U. Soriano, R. Venditti and D. S. Argyropoulos, Fuel , 2009, 88 , 560–565  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Di Serio, R. Tesser, M. Dimiccoli, F. Cammarota, M. Nastasi and E. Santacesaria, J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. , 2005, 239 , 111–115  CrossRef   CAS .
• F. Su and Y. Guo, Green Chem. , 2014, 16 , 2934–2957  RSC .
• U. Schuchardt, R. Sercheli and R. M. Vargas, J. Braz. Chem. Soc. , 1998, 9 , 199–210  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. K. Lam and K. T. Lee, in Biofuels , ed. A. Pandey, C. Larroche, S. C. Ricke, C.-G. Dussap and E. Gnansounou, Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2011,  DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-385099-7.00016-4 , pp. 353–374.
• P. Morin, B. Hamad, G. Sapaly, M. G. Carneiro Rocha, P. G. Pries de Oliveira, W. A. Gonzalez, E. Andrade Sales and N. Essayem, Appl. Catal., A , 2007, 330 , 69–76  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Nasreen, M. Nafees, L. A. Qureshi, M. S. Asad, A. Sadiq and S. D. Ali, Biofuels: State of Development , 2018, pp. 93–119  Search PubMed .
• R. O. Idem, S. P. R. Katikaneni and N. N. Bakhshi, Fuel Process. Technol. , 1997, 51 , 101–125  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Macario, G. Giordano, B. Onida, D. Cocina, A. Tagarelli and A. M. Giuffrè, Appl. Catal., A , 2010, 378 , 160–168  CrossRef   CAS .
• T. Meechai, S. Kongchamdee, W. W. Mar and E. Somsook, J. Oleo Sci. , 2018, 67 , 355–367  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• M. D. G. de Luna, J. L. Cuasay, N. C. Tolosa and T.-W. Chung, Fuel , 2017, 209 , 246–253  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Han, W. Yan, C.-T. Hung, Y. He, P.-H. Wu, L.-L. Liu, S.-J. Huang and S.-B. Liu, Korean J. Chem. Eng. , 2016, 33 , 2063–2072  CrossRef   CAS .
• I. Istadi, U. Mabruro, B. A. Kalimantini, L. Buchori and D. D. Anggoro, Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. , 2016, 11 , 34–39  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. Bhandari, V. Volli and M. K. Purkait, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. , 2015, 3 , 906–914  CrossRef   CAS .
• F.-J. Li, H.-Q. Li, L.-G. Wang and Y. Cao, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2015, 131 , 421–429  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. Wu, J. Zhang, Q. Wei, J. Zheng and J. Zhang, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2013, 109 , 13–18  CrossRef   CAS .
• C. Ofori-Boateng and K. T. Lee, Chem. Eng. J. , 2013, 220 , 395–401  CrossRef   CAS .
• J.-X. Wang, K.-T. Chen, B.-Z. Wen, Y.-H. B. Liao and C.-C. Chen, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. , 2012, 43 , 215–219  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Ding, H. Sun, J. Duan, P. Chen, H. Lou and X. Zheng, Catal. Commun. , 2011, 12 , 606–610  CrossRef   CAS .
• D. Meloni, R. Monaci, Z. Zedde, M. G. Cutrufello, S. Fiorilli and I. Ferino, Appl. Catal., B , 2011, 102 , 505–514  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Liu, X. Piao, Y. Wang and S. Zhu, J. Phys. Chem. A , 2010, 114 , 3750–3755  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. Coker, A. Iretski, M. White, R. Hernandez and T. French, 2010.
• G. Teng, L. Gao, G. Xiao and H. Liu, Energy Fuels , 2009, 23 , 4630–4634  CrossRef   CAS .
• C. Fan, Z. Bin-Bin, L. Jing, Z. Guo-Yu, F. Wei-Ping and Y. Le-Fu, Acta Phys.-Chim. Sin. , 2008, 24 , 1817–1823  Search PubMed .
• M. Kouzu, T. Kasuno, M. Tajika, Y. Sugimoto, S. Yamanaka and J. Hidaka, Fuel , 2008, 87 , 2798–2806  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Liu, X. Piao, Y. Wang, S. Zhu and H. He, Fuel , 2008, 87 , 1076–1082  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Liu, X. Piao, Y. Wang and S. Zhu, Energy Fuels , 2008, 22 , 1313–1317  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Liu, H. He, Y. Wang, S. Zhu and X. Piao, Fuel , 2008, 87 , 216–221  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Kouzu, T. Kasuno, M. Tajika, S. Yamanaka and J. Hidaka, Appl. Catal., A , 2008, 334 , 357–365  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Liu, H. He, Y. Wang and S. Zhu, Catal. Commun. , 2007, 8 , 1107–1111  CrossRef   CAS .
• W. Xie, H. Peng and L. Chen, Appl. Catal., A , 2006, 300 , 67–74  CrossRef   CAS .
• T. Hiwot, Chem. Int. , 2018, 4 , 198–205  CAS .
• F. Ullah, L. Dong, A. Bano, Q. Peng and J. Huang, J. Energy Inst. , 2016, 89 , 282–292  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Semwal, A. K. Arora, R. P. Badoni and D. K. Tuli, Bioresour. Technol. , 2011, 102 , 2151–2161  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. L. de Lima, C. M. Ronconi and C. J. A. Mota, Catal. Sci. Technol. , 2016, 6 , 2877–2891  RSC .
• J. Buendia, G. Grelier and P. Dauban, in Advances in Organometallic Chemistry , ed. P. J. Pérez, Academic Press, 2015, vol. 64, pp. 77–118  Search PubMed .
• G. Parshall and S. Ittel, 1992.
• B. Cornils and W. A. Herrmann, vol. 1, 245–258.
• E. V. Gusevskaya, Quim. Nova , 2003, 26 , 242–248  CrossRef   CAS .
• V. Terrasson and E. Guénin, in Novel Magnetic Nanostructures , ed. N. Domracheva, M. Caporali and E. Rentschler, Elsevier, 2018,  DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-813594-5.00010-2 , pp. 333–371.
• A. B. Ferreira, A. Lemos Cardoso and M. J. da Silva, ISRN Renewable Energy , 2012, 2012 , 142857  CrossRef .
• C.-S. Cho, D.-T. Kim, H.-J. Choi, T.-J. Kim and S.-C. Shim, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. , 2002, 23 , 539–540  CrossRef   CAS .
• C. E. Gonçalves, L. O. Laier and M. J. d. Silva, Catal. Lett. , 2011, 141 , 1111–1117  CrossRef .
• M. R. Meneghetti and S. M. P. Meneghetti, Catal. Sci. Technol. , 2015, 5 , 765–771  RSC .
• Y. C. Brito, D. A. C. Ferreira, D. M. d. A. Fragoso, P. R. Mendes, C. M. J. d. Oliveira, M. R. Meneghetti and S. M. P. Meneghetti, Appl. Catal., A , 2012, 443–444 , 202–206  CrossRef   CAS .
• G. Deshayes, F. A. G. Mercier, P. Degée, I. Verbruggen, M. Biesemans, R. Willem and P. Dubois, Chem.–Eur. J. , 2003, 9 , 4346–4352  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• S. Shyamroy, B. Garnaik and S. Sivaram, J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. , 2005, 43 , 2164–2177  CrossRef   CAS .
• I. Shiina, Chem. Rev. , 2007, 107 , 239–273  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. K. Singh, R. Prakash and D. Pandey, RSC Adv. , 2012, 2 , 10316–10323  RSC .
• D. R. de Mendonça, J. P. V. da Silva, R. M. de Almeida, C. R. Wolf, M. R. Meneghetti and S. M. P. Meneghetti, Appl. Catal., A , 2009, 365 , 105–109  CrossRef .
• G.-H. Hu, Y.-J. Sun and M. Lambla, Die Makromolekulare Chemie , 1993, 194 , 665–675  CrossRef   CAS .
• B. Norjannah, H. C. Ong, H. H. Masjuki, J. C. Juan and W. T. Chong, RSC Adv. , 2016, 6 , 60034–60055  RSC .
• M. Kaieda, T. Samukawa, T. Matsumoto, K. Ban, A. Kondo, Y. Shimada, H. Noda, F. Nomoto, K. Ohtsuka, E. Izumoto and H. Fukuda, J. Biosci. Bioeng. , 1999, 88 , 627–631  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• V. Kumari, S. Shah and M. N. Gupta, Energy Fuels , 2007, 21 , 368–372  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. C. Meher, D. Vidya Sagar and S. N. Naik, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2006, 10 , 248–268  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Tamalampudi, M. R. Talukder, S. Hama, T. Numata, A. Kondo and H. Fukuda, Biochem. Eng. J. , 2008, 39 , 185–189  CrossRef   CAS .
• J. Rodrigues, A. Canet, I. Rivera, N. M. Osório, G. Sandoval, F. Valero and S. Ferreira-Dias, Bioresour. Technol. , 2016, 213 , 88–95  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• G. Lazar and L. Eirich, 1989.
• P. Radha, K. Prabhu, A. Jayakumar, S. AbilashKarthik and K. Ramani, Process Biochem. , 2020, 95 , 17–29  CrossRef   CAS .
• K. V. Fernandes, E. D. C. Cavalcanti, E. P. Cipolatti, E. C. G. Aguieiras, M. C. C. Pinto, F. A. Tavares, P. R. da Silva, R. Fernandez-Lafuente, S. Arana-Peña, J. C. Pinto, C. L. B. Assunção, J. A. C. da Silva and D. M. G. Freire, Catal. Today , 2021, 362 , 122–129  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. C. Rial, O. N. de Freitas, C. E. D. Nazário and L. H. Viana, Renew. Energy , 2020, 149 , 970–979  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. J. H. Júnior, J. N. R. Ract, L. A. Gioielli and M. Vitolo, 2019.
• M. Mittelbach, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. , 1990, 67 , 168–170  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Chen, B. Xiao, J. Chang, Y. Fu, P. Lv and X. Wang, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2009, 50 , 668–673  CrossRef   CAS .
• N. Dizge, C. Aydiner, D. Y. Imer, M. Bayramoglu, A. Tanriseven and B. Keskinler, Bioresour. Technol. , 2009, 100 , 1983–1991  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• L. P. Christopher, K. Hemanathan and V. P. Zambare, Appl. Energy , 2014, 119 , 497–520  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. Fjerbaek, K. V. Christensen and B. Norddahl, Biotechnol. Bioeng. , 2009, 102 , 1298–1315  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• M. Di Serio, R. Tesser, L. Pengmei and E. Santacesaria, Energy Fuels , 2008, 22 , 207–217  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. K. Endalew, Y. Kiros and R. Zanzi, Biomass Bioenergy , 2011, 35 , 3787–3809  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. K. Karmee and A. Chadha, Bioresour. Technol. , 2005, 96 , 1425–1429  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. P. S. Chouhan and A. K. Sarma, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2011, 15 , 4378–4399  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Galadima and O. Muraza, Energy , 2014, 78 , 72–83  CrossRef   CAS .
• D. Vujicic, D. Comic, A. Zarubica, R. Micic and G. Boskovic, Fuel , 2010, 89 , 2054–2061  CrossRef   CAS .
• Z.-E. Tang, S. Lim, Y.-L. Pang, H.-C. Ong and K.-T. Lee, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2018, 92 , 235–253  CrossRef   CAS .
• V. Vinu and N. N. Binitha, Mater. Today: Proc. , 2020, 25 , 241–245  CAS .
• G. Anusha, Curr. Trends Biotechnol. Pharm. , 2020, 14 , 134–140  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Hidayat, A. Chafidz and B. Sutrisno, 2020.
• A. Hidayat, G. K. Roziq, F. Muhammad, W. Kurniawan and H. Hinode, 2020.
• G. Liu, J. Yang and X. Xu, Sci. Rep. , 2020, 10 , 10273  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• D. Chaos-Hernández, H. Reynel-Avila, D. Mendoza-Castillo and A. Bonilla-Petriciolet, Bulg. Chem. Commun. , 2019, 51 , 89–92  Search PubMed .
• J. F. Puna, M. J. N. Correia, A. P. S. Dias, J. Gomes and J. Bordado, React. Kinet., Mech. Catal. , 2013, 109 , 405–415  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. A. Mosaberpanah and S. A. Umar, Mater. Today Sustain. , 2020, 7–8 , 100030  CrossRef .
• G. Golakiya, University of Saskatchewan, 2020.
• M. N. A. Ahmad Zawawi, K. Muthusamy, A. P. P. Abdul Majeed, R. Muazu Musa and A. Mokhtar Albshir Budiea, J. Build. Eng. , 2020, 27 , 100924  CrossRef .
• W. Wang, K. Sun and H. Liu, Constr. Build. Mater. , 2020, 241 , 118119  CrossRef   CAS .
• G. Tang, X. Liu, L. Zhou, P. Zhang, D. Deng and H. Jiang, Adv. Powder Technol. , 2020, 31 , 279–286  CrossRef   CAS .
• O.-A. Clarence, International Development Innovation Network, 2016.
• J. Singh, Int. J. N. Innovat. Eng. Technol. , 2019, 15 , 61–66  Search PubMed .
• F. Nuruddin, N. Shafiq and N. M. Kamal, 2008.
• L. Armesto, A. Bahillo, K. Veijonen, A. Cabanillas and J. Otero, Biomass Bioenergy , 2002, 23 , 171–179  CrossRef   CAS .
• K. Bonet-Ragel, L. López-Pou, G. Tutusaus, M. D. Benaiges and F. Valero, Biocatal. Biotransform. , 2018, 36 , 151–158  CrossRef   CAS .
• V. P. Della, I. Kühn and D. Hotza, Mater. Lett. , 2002, 57 , 818–821  CrossRef   CAS .
• K.-T. Chen, J.-X. Wang, Y.-M. Dai, P.-H. Wang, C.-Y. Liou, C.-W. Nien, J.-S. Wu and C.-C. Chen, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. , 2013, 44 , 622–629  CrossRef   CAS .
• N. Saengprachum and S. Pengprecha, 2012.
• L. A.-t. Bui, C.-t. Chen, C.-l. Hwang and W.-s. Wu, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. , 2012, 19 , 252–258  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. Pode, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. , 2016, 53 , 1468–1485  CrossRef .
• G. Tufaner, A. Çalışkan, H. B. Yener and Ş. Şeref, 2019.
• E. Saputra, M. W. Nugraha, Z. Helwani, M. Olivia and S. Wang, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 345 , 012019  CrossRef .
• N. Saengprachum and S. Pengprecha, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. , 2016, 58 , 441–450  CrossRef   CAS .
• G.-Y. Chen, R. Shan, J.-F. Shi and B.-B. Yan, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2015, 133 , 8–13  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. C. Manique, C. S. Faccini, B. Onorevoli, E. V. Benvenutti and E. B. Caramão, Fuel , 2012, 92 , 56–61  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. B. Soares, P. R. N. da Silva, A. M. Stumbo and J. C. C. Freitas, Quim. Nova , 2012, 35 , 268–273  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. Aisyah, C. Wibowo, S. Bethari, D. Ufidian and R. Anggarani, 2018.
• Z. Wei, C. Xu and B. Li, Bioresour. Technol. , 2009, 100 , 2883–2885  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• Y. C. Sharma, B. Singh and J. Korstad, Energy Fuels , 2010, 24 , 3223–3231  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. T. Hincke, Y. Nys, J. Gautron, K. Mann, A. B. Rodriguez-Navarro and M. D. McKee, Front. Biosci. , 2012, 17 , 80  CrossRef   PubMed .
• Y. Nys and J. Gautron, in Bioactive egg compounds , Springer, 2007, pp. 99–102  Search PubMed .
• X. Xuan, C. Yue, S. Li and Q. Yao, Fuel , 2003, 82 , 575–579  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. Kumar, S. Kumar and S. P. Mehrotra, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. , 2007, 52 , 157–179  CrossRef .
• S. K. Chaudhuri and B. Sur, J. Environ. Eng. , 2000, 126 , 583–594  CrossRef   CAS .
• Q. V. Trinh, S. Nagy and G. Mucsi, presented in part at the MultiScience – XXXIII. microCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference , 2019  Search PubMed .
• S. M. Pavlović, D. M. Marinković, M. D. Kostić, I. M. Janković-Častvan, L. V. Mojović, M. V. Stanković and V. B. Veljković, Fuel , 2020, 267 , 117171  CrossRef .
• J. Malonda Shabani, O. Babajide, O. Oyekola and L. Petrik, Catalysts , 2019, 9 , 1052  CrossRef .
• T. Aniokete, M. Ozonoh and M. O. Daramola, Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. , 2019, 9 , 1924–1937  Search PubMed .
• P. Y. He, Y. J. Zhang, H. Chen, Z. C. Han and L. C. Liu, Fuel , 2019, 257 , 116041  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. W. Go and S. H. Yeom, Environ. Eng. Res. , 2019, 24 , 324–330  CrossRef .
• D. R. Lathiya, D. V. Bhatt and K. C. Maheria, ChemistrySelect , 2019, 4 , 4392–4397  CrossRef   CAS .
• Z. Helwani, W. Fatra, E. Saputra and R. Maulana, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 334 , 012077  Search PubMed .
• Y. Xiang, Y. Xiang and L. Wang, J. Taibah Univ. Sci. , 2017, 11 , 1019–1029  CrossRef .
• M. C. Manique, L. V. Lacerda, A. K. Alves and C. P. Bergmann, Fuel , 2017, 190 , 268–273  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. Satriadi, A. Khaibar and M. M. Almakhi, 2017.
• H. Hadiyanto, S. P. Lestari, A. Abdullah, W. Widayat and H. Sutanto, Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. , 2016, 7 , 297–305  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Xiang, L. Wang and Y. Jiao, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. , 2016, 4 , 818–824  CrossRef   CAS .
• P. Kumar, M. Aslam, N. Singh, S. Mittal, A. Bansal, M. K. Jha and A. K. Sarma, RSC Adv. , 2015, 5 , 9946–9954  RSC .
• W. W. S. Ho, H. K. Ng, S. Gan and S. H. Tan, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2014, 88 , 1167–1178  CrossRef   CAS .
• O. Babajide, Catal. Today , 2013, 201 , 210  CrossRef   CAS .
• O. Babajide, N. Musyoka, L. Petrik and F. Ameer, Catal. Today , 2012, 190 , 54–60  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Senthil, K. Visagavel, C. G. Saravanan and K. Rajendran, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2016, 149 , 7–14  CrossRef   CAS .
• W. Liu, J. Yang and B. Xiao, J. Hazard. Mater. , 2009, 161 , 474–478  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• H. da Silva Almeida, O. A. Corrêa, J. G. Eid, H. J. Ribeiro, D. A. R. de Castro, M. S. Pereira, L. M. Pereira, A. de Andrade Mâncio, M. C. Santos, J. A. da Silva Souza, L. E. P. Borges, N. M. Mendonça and N. T. Machado, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis , 2016, 118 , 20–33  CrossRef   CAS .
• Q. Liu, R. Xin, C. Li, C. Xu and J. Yang, J. Environ. Sci. , 2013, 25 , 823–829  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Senthil, K. Visagavel and A. Avinash, Energy Sources, Part A , 2016, 38 , 876–881  CrossRef   CAS .
• G. Alkan, C. Schier, L. Gronen, S. Stopj and B. Friedrich, Metals , 2017, 7 , 458  CrossRef .
• K. Yoon, J.-M. Jung, D.-W. Cho, D. C. W. Tsang, E. E. Kwon and H. Song, J. Hazard. Mater. , 2019, 366 , 293–300  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• L. Y. Zhang, Y. Z. Wang, G. T. Wei, Z. Y. Li and H. N. Huang, Energy Sources, Part A , 2016, 38 , 1713–1720  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Bhattacharyya and B. S. Rajanikanth, Energy Procedia , 2015, 75 , 2371–2378  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. N. Dhoble and S. Ahmed, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. , 2018, 20 , 1373–1382  CrossRef   CAS .
• T. A. Branca, V. Colla, D. Algermissen, H. Granbom, U. Martini, A. Morillon, R. Pietruck and S. Rosendahl, Metals , 2020, 10 , 345  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Galadima and O. Muraza, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2020, 263 , 121358  CrossRef   CAS .
• F. Hildor, T. Mattisson, H. Leion, C. Linderholm and M. Rydén, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control , 2019, 88 , 321–331  CrossRef   CAS .
• G. Kabir, A. T. Mohd Din and B. H. Hameed, Bioresour. Technol. , 2018, 249 , 42–48  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• R. Bakti Cahyono, A. N. Rozhan, N. Yasuda, T. Nomura, S. Hosokai, Y. Kashiwaya and T. Akiyama, Fuel , 2013, 109 , 439–444  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Zong, X. Zhang, E. Mukiza, X. Xu and F. Li, Appl. Sci. , 2018, 8 , 1187  CrossRef .
• H. Zhou, B. Li, Y. Wei, H. Wang, Y. Yang and A. McLean, Can. Metall. Q. , 2019, 58 , 187–195  CrossRef   CAS .
• B. Li, Y. Wei, H. Wang and Y. Yang, ISIJ Int. , 2018, 58 , 1168–1174  CrossRef   CAS .
• J. Wang, S. Xing, Y. Huang, P. Fan, J. Fu, G. Yang, L. Yang and P. Lv, Appl. Energy , 2017, 190 , 703–712  CrossRef   CAS .
• X. Ma, Y. Li, L. Shi, Z. He and Z. Wang, Appl. Energy , 2016, 168 , 85–95  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. Kashiwaya, K. Toishi, Y. Kaneki and Y. Yamakoshi, ISIJ Int. , 2007, 47 , 1829–1831  CrossRef   CAS .
• T. Siengchum, M. Isenberg and S. S. C. Chuang, Fuel , 2013, 105 , 559–565  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Tharwani, A. Sablani, G. Batra, S. Tiwari, D. Reel and M. N. Gandhi, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Technol. , 2017, 4 , 37–41  Search PubMed .
• K. Gunasekaran, R. Annadurai and P. S. Kumar, Constr. Build. Mater. , 2012, 28 , 208–215  CrossRef .
• M. Kaur and M. Kaur, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. , 2012, 7 , 05–08  Search PubMed .
• A. R. Hidayu and N. Muda, Procedia Eng. , 2016, 148 , 106–113  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Endut, S. H. Y. S. Abdullah, N. H. M. Hanapi, S. H. A. Hamid, F. Lananan, M. K. A. Kamarudin, R. Umar, H. Juahir and H. Khatoon, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. , 2017, 124 , 250–257  CrossRef   CAS .
• Y. S. Pradana, A. Hidayat, A. Prasetya and A. Budiman, 2018.
• A. Buasri, N. Chaiyut, V. Loryuenyong, C. Rodklum, T. Chaikwan, N. Kumphan, K. Jadee, P. Klinklom and W. Wittayarounayut, Sci. Asia , 2012, 38 , 283–288  CAS .
• K. Vinukumar, A. Azhagurajan, S. C. Vettivel, N. Vedaraman and A. Haiter Lenin, Fuel , 2018, 222 , 180–184  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. S. Pinheiro, A. M. M. Bessa, B. A. de Queiroz, A. M. S. F. Duarte, H. B. de Sant'Ana and R. S. de Santiago-Aguiar, Fluid Phase Equilib. , 2014, 361 , 30–36  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. S. Shelke, K. R. Ninghot, P. P. Kunjekar and S. P. Gaikwad, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res. , 2014, 2278–3652  Search PubMed .
• H. Li, S. Niu, C. Lu, M. Liu and M. Huo, Sci. China: Technol. Sci. , 2014, 57 , 438–444  CrossRef   CAS .
• J. Cheng, J. Zhou, J. Liu, X. Cao and K. Cen, Energy Fuels , 2009, 23 , 2506–2516  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. Li, S. Niu, C. Lu, M. Liu and M. Huo, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2014, 86 , 1110–1117  CrossRef   CAS .
• H. Li, S.-l. Niu, C.-m. Lu and S.-q. Cheng, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2015, 103 , 57–65  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Wahyudi, W. Kurniawan and H. Hinode, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. , 2017, 50 , 561–567  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. Shan, C. Zhao, P. Lv, H. Yuan and J. Yao, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2016, 127 , 273–283  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Marwaha, P. Rosha, S. K. Mohapatra, S. K. Mahla and A. Dhir, Fuel Process. Technol. , 2018, 181 , 175–186  CrossRef   CAS .
• M. Arsalanfar, A. A. Mirzaei, H. R. Bozorgzadeh, A. Samimi and R. Ghobadi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. , 2014, 20 , 1313–1323  CrossRef   CAS .
• S. Mohebbi, M. Rostamizadeh and D. Kahforoushan, Fuel , 2020, 266 , 117063  CrossRef   CAS .
• Z. T. Alismaeel, A. S. Abbas, T. M. Albayati and A. M. Doyle, Fuel , 2018, 234 , 170–176  CrossRef   CAS .
• C. Thunyaratchatanon, A. Luengnaruemitchai, J. Jitjamnong, N. Chollacoop, S.-Y. Chen and Y. Yoshimura, Energy Fuels , 2018, 32 , 9744–9755  CrossRef   CAS .
• L. M. Yang, P. M. Lv, Z. H. Yuan, W. Luo, Z. M. Wang and H. W. Li, 2011.
• R. M. M. Bühler, A. C. Dutra, F. Vendruscolo, D. E. Moritz and J. L. Ninow, Food Sci. Technol. , 2013, 33 , 9–13  CrossRef .
• B. J. Kerr, W. A. Dozier III and K. Bregendahl, 2007.
• S. S. Yazdani and R. Gonzalez, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. , 2007, 18 , 213–219  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• J.-H. Ng, S. K. Leong, S. S. Lam, F. N. Ani and C. T. Chong, Energy Convers. Manage. , 2017, 143 , 399–409  CrossRef   CAS .
• W. Bühler, E. Dinjus, H. J. Ederer, A. Kruse and C. Mas, J. Supercrit. Fluids , 2002, 22 , 37–53  CrossRef .
• Z. Ullah, A. S. Khan, N. Muhammad, R. Ullah, A. S. Alqahtani, S. N. Shah, O. B. Ghanem, M. A. Bustam and Z. Man, J. Mol. Liq. , 2018, 266 , 673–686  CrossRef   CAS .

Literature Review

• First Online: 01 January 2014

Cite this chapter

• Pogaku Ravindra 3 &
• Kenthorai Raman Jegannathan 4  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Bioengineering ((BRIEFSBIOENG))

900 Accesses

The literature review of biodiesel production is presented in this chapter. In the first part, the various catalysts which are being used for biodiesel production was reviewed in detail. In the second part the need for immobilized enzyme, the various immobilization techniques and immobilized enzyme used for biodiesel production were reviewed critically. The third part in the literature review was devoted to κ-carrageenan, the enzymes, the methods used for immobilization using κ-carrageenan and applications were reviewed. In the fourth part the factors effecting the biodiesel production using immobilized lipase was reviewed critically and various suggestions were given based on the literature. The latter parts were devoted to the immobilized bioreactors, enzyme kinetics, life cycle assessment, and economics assessment.

• Life Cycle Assessment
• Immobilize Enzyme
• Immobilize Lipase
• Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester
• Immobilization Technique

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Akoh CC, Chang SS, Lee GG, Shaw JJ (2007) Enzymatic approach to biodiesel production. J Agric Food Chem 55:8995–9005

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Al-Zuhair S (2005) Production of biodiesel by lipase-catalyzed transesterification of vegetable Oils: a kinetics study. Biotechnol Prog 21:1442–1448

Al-Zuhair S, Fan YW, Lim SJ (2007) Proposed kinetic mechanism of the production of biodiesel from palm oil using lipase. Process Biochem 42:951–960

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Al-Zuhair S, Jayaraman KS, Smita K, Chan W (2006) The effect of fatty acid concentration and water content on the production of biodiesel by lipase. Biochem Eng J 30:212–217

Al-zuhair S (2007) Production of biodiesel: possibilities and challenges. Biofuel Bioprod Bior 1:57–66

Bacovsky D, Körbitz W, Mittelbach M, Wörgetter M (2007) Biodiesel production: technologies and European providers. IEA Task 39 Report T39-B6

Google Scholar  

Balcão VM, Paiva AL, Malcata FX (1996) Bioreactors with immobilized lipases: state of the art. Enzyme Microb Technol 18:392–416

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Be´Lafi-Bako K, Kova´Cs F, Gubicza L, Hancsok J (2002) Enzymatic biodiesel production from sunflower oil by Candida antarctica lipase in a solvent-free system. Biocatal Biotransfor 20:437–439

Article   Google Scholar  

Bommarius AS, Riebel-Bommarius BR (2000) Biocatalysts: fundamentals and applications. John Wiley & sons, New York

Bondioli P (2004) The preparation of fatty acid esters by means of catalytic reactions. Top Catal 27:77–82

Bonrath W, Karge R, Netscher T (2002) Lipase-catalyzed transformations as key-steps in the large-scale preparation of vitamins. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 19:67–72

Bosley JA, Peilow AD (1997) Immobilization of lipase on porous polypropylene: reduction in esterification efficiency at low loading. J Am Oil Chem Soc 74:107–111

Canakci M, Gerpen VJ (2001) Biodiesel production from oils and fats with high free fatty acids. Trans ASAE 44:1429–1436

Cao LQ, Langen VL, Sheldon RA (2003) Immobilized enzymes: carrier-bound or carrier-free? Curr Opin Biotechnol 14:387–394

Cao L (2005) Immobilized enzymes: science or art? Curr Opin Chem Biol 9:217–226

Caye MD, Nghiem PN, Terry HW (2008) Biofuels engineering process technology. McGraw-Hill, New York

Cecilia GA, Amalia AC, Ferreira M (2007) Relation between lipase structures and their catalytic ability to hydrolyse triglycerides and phospholipids. Enzyme Microb Technol 41:35–43

Chamorro S, Sanchez-Montero JM, Alcantara AR, Sinisterra JV (1998) Treatment of Candida rugosa lipase with short-chain polar organic solvents enhances its hydrolytic and synthetic activities. Biotechnol Lett 20:499–505

Chen JW, Wu WT (2003) Regeneration of immobilized Candida antarctica Lipase for transesterification. J Biosci Bioeng 95:466–469

Chisti Y (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 25:294–306

Colton IJ, Ahmed SN, Kazlauskas RJ (1995) A2-propanol treatment increases the enantioselectivity of Candida rugosa lipase toward esters of chiral carboxylic acids. J Org Chem 60:212–217

Concawe (2006) Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and power trains in the European context, European commission . EUCAR and EC Joint Research Centre. Report. ( http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/wtw.html )

Diasakou M, Louloudi A, Papayannakos N (1998) Kinetics of the noncatalytic transesterification of soybean oil. Fuel 77:1297–1302

Dizge N, Aydiner C, Derya YI, Mahmut B, Aziz T, Keskinler B (2009) Biodiesel production from sunflower, soybean, and waste cooking oils by transesterification using lipase immobilized onto a novel microporous polymer. Bioresour Technol 100:1983–1991

Dong HL, Jung MK, Seong WK, Ji WL, Seung WK (2006) Pretreatment of lipase with soybean oil before immobilization to prevent loss of activity. Biotechnol Lett 28:1965–1969

Dossat V, Combes D, Marty A (2002) Lipase-catalyzed transesterification of high oleic sunflower oil. Enzyme Microb Technol 30:90–94

Du W, Xu Y, Liu D, Zeng J (2004) Comparative study on lipase-catalyzed transformation of soybean oil for biodiesel production with different acyl acceptors. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 30:25–129

Du W, Xu Y, Liu D, Li Z (2005) Study on acyl migration in immobilized lipozyme TL-catalyzed transesterification of soybean oil for biodiesel production. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 37:68–71

Fjerbaek L, Christensen KV, Norddahl B (2009) A review of the current State of biodiesel production using enzymatic transesterification. Biotechnol Bioeng 102:1298–1315

Freedman BW, Kwolek F, Pryde EH (1986) Quantitation in the analysis of transesterified soybean oil by capillary gas chromatography. J Am Oil Chem Soc 63:1370–1375

Halim SFA, Kamaruddin AH (2008) Catalytic studies of lipase on FAME production from waste cooking palm oil in a tert-butanol system. Process Biochem 43:1436–1439

Halim SFA, Kamaruddin AH, Fernando WJN (2009) Continuous biosynthesis of biodiesel from waste cooking palm oil in a packed bed reactor: optimization using response surface methodology (RSM) and mass transfer studies. Bioresour Technol 100:710–716

Harding KG, Dennis JS, Blottnitz HV, Harrison STL (2008) A life-cycle comparison between inorganic and biological catalysis for the production of biodiesel. J Clean Prod 16:1368–1378

Hsu A, Jones K, Marmer WN, Foglia TA (2001) Production of alkyl esters from tallow and grease using lipase immobilized in a phyllosilicate sol-gel. J Am Oil Chem Soc 78:585–588

International Energy Agency (2007) Energy technology essentials: biomass for power generation and CHP. Report

Iso M, Chen B, Eguchi M, Kudo T, Shrestha S (2001) Production of biodiesel fuel from triglycerides and alcohol using immobilized lipase. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 16:53–58

Jegannathan KR, Abang S, Poncelet D, Chan ES, Ravindra P (2008) Production of biodiesel using immobilized lipase- a critical review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 28:253–264

Jegannathan KR, Chan ES, Ravindra P (2009) Harnessing biofuels: a global renaissance in energy production? Renew Sust Energy Rev 13:2163–2168

Kang ST, Rhee JS (1989) Characteristics of immobilized lipase-catalyzed hydrolysis of olive oil of high concentration in reverse phase systems. Biotechnol Bioeng 33:1469–1476

Karube I, Yugeta Y, Suzuki S (1977) Electric field control of lipase membrane activity. Biotechnol Bioeng 19:1493–1501

Kasteren VJMN, Nisworo AP (2007) A process model to estimate the cost of industrial scale biodiesel production from waste cooking oil by supercritical transesterification. Resour Conserv Recycle 50:442–458

Kayode Coker A (2001) Modeling of chemical kinetics and reactor design. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston

Kennedy JF, Melo EHM, Jumel K (1990) Immobilized enzymes end cells. Chem Eng Prog 86:81–89

CAS   Google Scholar  

Kiwjaroun C, Tubtimdee C, Piumsomboon P (2009) LCA studies comparing biodiesel synthesized by conventional and supercritical methanol methods. J Clean Prod 17:143–153

Kreiner M, Parker MC, Barry DM (2001) Enzyme-coated micro-crystals: a 1-step method for high activity biocatalyst preparation. Chem Commun 12:1096–1097

Kumari V, Shah S, Gupta MN (2007) Preparation of biodiesel by lipase-catalyzed transesterification of high free fatty acid containing oil from Madhuca indica . Energy Fuel 21:368–372

Kusdiana D, Saka S (2001) Methyl esterification of free fatty acids of rapeseed oil as treated in supercritical methanol. J Chem Eng Japan 34:383–387

Li L, Du W, Liu D, Wang L, Li Z (2006) Lipase catalyzed transesterification of rapeseed oils for biodiesel production with a novel organic solvents as the reaction medium. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 43:58–62

Licht FO (2008) World ethanol & biofuels. Report, no. 16

López DE, Goodwin JG, Bruce DA (2007) Transesterification of triacetin with methanol on nafion acid resins. J Catal 245:379–385

Lu J, Nie K, Xie F, Wang F, Tan T (2007) Enzymatic synthesis of fatty acids methyl esters from lard with immobilized Candida sp. 99–125. Process Biochem 42:1367–1370

Malcata FX, Hill CG (1991) Use of a lipase immobilized in a membrane reactor to hydrolyze the glycerides of butter oil. Biotechnol Bioeng 38:853–868

Marchetti JM, Errazu AF (2008) Technoeconomic study of supercritical biodiesel production plant. Energy Conver Manag 49:2160–2164

Mittelbach M, Worgetter M, Pernkopf J, Junek H (1983) Diesel fuel derived from vegetable oils: preparation and use of rape oil methyl-ester. Energy Agric 2:369–384

Mittelbach M (1990) Lipase catalyzed alcoholysis of sunflower oil. J Am Oil Chem Soc 67: 168–170

Mittelbach M, Remschmidt C (2006) Biodiesel: the comprehensive handbook. Martin Mittelbach, Graz

Mukesh D, Anil Kumar K, Gaikar VG (2004) Biotransformations and bioprocesses. Marcel Dekker, New York

Mukesh KM, Reddy JRC, Rao BVSK, Prasad RBN (2006) Lipase-mediated transformation of vegetable oils into biodiesel using propan-2-ol as acyl acceptor. Biotechnol Lett 28:637–640

Mukesh KM, Reddy JRC, Rao BVSK, Prasad RBN (2007) Lipase-mediated conversion of vegetable oils into biodiesel using ethyl acetate as acyl acceptor. Bioresour Technol 98:1260–1264

Nelson LA, Foglia TA, Marmer WN (1996) Lipase-catalyzed production of biodiesel. J Am Oil Chem Soc 73:1191–1195

Nie K, Xie F, Wang T, Tan T (2006) Lipase catalyzed methanolysis to produce biodiesel: optimization of the biodiesel production. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 43:142–147

Noureddini H, Gao X, Philkana RS (2005) Immobilized Pseudomonas cepacia lipase for biodiesel fuel production from soybean oil. Bioresour Technol 96:769–777

Oliveira JV, Oliveira D (2001) Enzymatic alcoholysis of palm kernel oil in n-hexane and SCCO 2 . J Supercrit Fluid 19:141–148

Orcaire O, Buisson P, Pierre AC (2006) Application of silica aerogel encapsulated lipases in the synthesis of biodiesel by transesterification reactions. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 42:106–113

Piculell L (2006) Gelling carrageenans, food polysaccharides and their applications, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, London

Pleiss J, Fisher M, Schmid RD (1998) Anatomy of lipase binding sites: the scissile fatty acid binding site. Chem Phys 93:67–80

Posorske LH (1984) Industrial-Scale application of enzymes to the fats and oil industry. J Am Oil Chem Soc 61:1758–1760

Pronk W, Kerkhof PJA, Van Helden C, Vant Reit K (1988) The hydrolysis of triglycerides by immobilized lipase in a hydrophilic membrane reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 32:512–518

Ramachandra MV, Jayadev B, Muniswaran PKA (2002) Hydrolysis of oils by using immobilized lipase enzyme: a review. Biotechnol Bioproc Eng 7:57–66

Rayon D, Daz M, Ellenrieder G, Locatelli S (2007) Enzymatic production of biodiesel from cotton seed oil using t-butanol as a solvent. Bioresour Technol 98:648–653

Reyed M (2007) Novel hybrid entrapment approach for probiotic cultures and its application during lyophilization. Internet J Biol Anthr 3: 2.

REN21 (2009) Renewables Global Status Report: Update

Sakai T, Kawashima A, Koshikawa T (2009) Economic assessment of batch biodiesel production processes using homogeneous and heterogeneous alkali catalysts. Bioresour Technol 100:3268–3276

Salis A, Pinna M, Monduzzi M, Solinas V (2005) Biodiesel production from triolein and short chain alcohols through biocatalysis. J Biotechnol 119:291–299

Samukawa T, Kaieda M, Matsumoto T, Ban K, Kondo A, Shimada Y, Noda H, Fukuda H (2000) Pretreatment of immobilized Candida antarctica lipase for biodiesel fuel production from plant oil. J Biosci Bioeng 90:180–183

Sankalia MG, Mashru RC, Sankalia MJ, Sutariya VB (2006) Stability improvement of alpha-amylase entrapped in kappa-carrageenan beads: physicochemical characterization and optimization using composite index. Int J Pharm 312:1–14

Shah S, Sharma S, Gupta MN (2004) Biodiesel preparation by lipase-catalyzed transesterification of Jatropha oil. Energy Fuel 18:154–159

Shah S, Gupta MN (2006) Lipase catalyzed preparation of biodiesel from Jatropha oil in a solvent free system. Process Biochem 42:409–414

Sheehan J, Cambreco V, Duffield J, Garboski M, Shapouri H (1998) An overview of biodiesel and petroleum diesel life cycles. A report by US Department of Agriculture and Energy 1–35

Shimada Y, Watanabe Y, Samukawa T (1999) Conversion of vegetable oil to biodiesel using immobilized Candida antarctica lipase. J Am Oil Chem Soc 76:789–793

Shimada Y, Watanabe H, Sugihara A, Tominaga Y (2002) Enzymatic alcoholysis for biodiesel fuel production and application of the reaction to oil processing. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 17:133–142

Soumanou MM, Bornscheuer UT (2003) Improvement in lipase-catalyzed synthesis of fatty acid methyl esters from sunflower oil. Enzyme Microb Technol 33:97–103

Sriappareddy T, Shinji H, Takanori T, Talukder MR, Kondo A, Fukuda H (2007) Immobilized recombinant Aspergillus oryzae expressing heterologous lipase: an efficient whole-cell biocatalyst for enantioselective transesterification in non-aqueous medium. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 48:33–37

Sriappareddy T, Talukder MR, Hama S, Numata T, Kondo A, Fukuda H (2008) Enzymatic production of biodiesel from Jatropha oil: a comparative study of immobilized-whole cell and commercial lipases as a biocatalyst. Biochem Eng J 39:185–189

Srivastava A, Prasad R (2000) Triglycerides-based diesel fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 4:111–113

Svendsen A (2000) Lipase protein engineering. Biochim Biophys Acta 1543:223–238

Sung HH, Lan MN, Lee SN, Hwang SM, Koo YM (2007) Lipase-catalyzed biodiesel production from soybean oil in ionic liquids. Enzyme Microb Technol 41:480–483

Talukder MMR, Beatrice KLM, Song OP, Puah S, Wu JC, Won CJ, Chow Y (2007) Improved method for efficient production of biodiesel production from palm oil. Biocatal Biotransfor 22:141–144

Talukder MMR, Puah SM, Wu JC, Won CJ, Chow Y (2006) Lipase-catalyzed methanolysis of palm oil in presence and absence of organic solvent for production of biodiesel. Biocatal Biotransfor 24:257–262

Tillman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600

Turkan A, Kalay S (2006) Monitoring lipase- catalyzed methanolysis of sunflower oil by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography: elucidation of the mechanism of lipases. J Chromatogr A 1127:34–44

Velde FV, Ruiter GAD (2002) Polysaccharides II: polysaccharides from eukaryotes. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

Wang L, Du W, Liu D, Li L, Dai N (2006) Lipase-catalyzed biodiesel production from soybean oil deodorizer distillate with absorbent present in tert-butanol system. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 43:29–32

Watanabe Y, Shimada Y, Sugihara A, Noda H, Fukuda H, Tominaga Y (2000) Continuous production of biodiesel fuel from vegetable oil using immobilized Candida antarctica Lipase. J Am Oil Chem Soc 77:355–360

Watanabe Y, Shimada Y, Sugihara A, Tominaga Y (2001) Enzymatic conversion of waste edible oil to biodiesel fuel in a fixed-bed bioreactor. J Am Oil Chem Soc 78:703–707

West AH, Posarac D, Ellis N (2008) Assessment of four biodiesel production processes using HYSYS plant. Bioresour Technol 99:6587–6601

Wu WH, Foglia TA, Marmer WN, Phillips JG (1999) Optimizing production of ethyl esters of grease using 95 % ethanol by response surface methodology. J Am Oil Chem Soc 76:517–521

Xavier MF, Hector RR, Hugo SG, Charles GH, Clyde HA (1990) Immobilized lipase reactors for modification of fats and oils- a review. J Am Oil Chem Soc 67:890–910

Xu Y, Du W, Liu D, Zeng J (2003) A novel enzymatic route for biodiesel production from renewable oils in a solvent-free medium. Biotechnol Lett 25:1239–1241

Xu Y, Du W, Liu D (2005) Study on the kinetics of enzymatic interesterification of triglycerides for biodiesel production with methyl acetate as the acyl acceptor. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 32:241–245

Yadav GD, Jadhav SR (2005) Synthesis of reusable lipases by immobilization on hexagonal mesoporous silica and encapsulation in calcium alginate: transesterification in non-aqueous medium. Micropor Mesopor Mat 86:215–222

Yagiz F, Kazan D, Akin AN (2007) Biodiesel production from waste oils by using lipase immobilized on hydrotalcite and zeolites. Chem Eng J 134:262–267

Yang G, Tian-Wei T, Kai-Li N, Fang W (2006) Immobilization of lipase on macroporous resin and its application in synthesis of biodiesel in low aqueous media. Chin J Biotechnol 22:114–118

Yazdani SS, Gonzalez R (2007) Anaerobic fermentation of glycerol: a path to economic viability for the biofuels industry. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18:213–21

Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT (2009) Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel: revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Appl Energy 86:189–196

Yesiloglu Y (2004) Immobilized lipase-catalyzed ethanolysis of sunflower oil. J Am Oil Chem Soc 81:157–160

You YD, Shie JL, Chang CY, Huang SH, Pai CY, Yu YH, Chang CH (2008) Economic cost analysis of biodiesel production: case in soybean oil. Energy Fuel 22:182–189

Zeng HG, Liao K, Deng X, Jiang H, Zhang F (2009) Characterization of the lipase immobilized on Mg–Al hydrotalcite for biodiesel. Process Biochem 44:791–798

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Malaysia Sabah School of Engineering & Info tech, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

Pogaku Ravindra

École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Kenthorai Raman Jegannathan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Ravindra, P., Jegannathan, K.R. (2015). Literature Review. In: Production of biodiesel using lipase encapsulated in κ-carrageenan. SpringerBriefs in Bioengineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10822-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10822-3_2

Published : 23 September 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-10821-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-10822-3

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.12(3); 2022 Jan 5

Sustainable biodiesel generation through catalytic transesterification of waste sources: a literature review and bibliometric survey

Walid nabgan.

School of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai Johor Malaysia

Centre of Hydrogen Energy, Institute of Future Energy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai Johor Malaysia, ym.mtu@jahahsia

Aishah Abdul Jalil

Bahador nabgan, arvind h. jadhav.

Centre for Nano and Material Science, JAIN University, Jain Global Campus, Bangalore 562112 Karnataka India

Muhammad Ikram

Solar Cell Applications Research Lab, Department of Physics, Government College University Lahore, 54000 Punjab Pakistan, [email protected]

Anwar Ul-Hamid

Core Research Facilities, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261 Saudi Arabia

Mohamad Wijayanuddin Ali

Nurul sahida hassan.

Sustainable renewable energy production is being intensely disputed worldwide because fossil fuel resources are declining gradually. One solution is biodiesel production via the transesterification process, which is environmentally feasible due to its low-emission diesel substitute. Significant issues arising with biodiesel production are the cost of the processes, which has stuck its sustainability and the applicability of different resources. In this article, the common biodiesel feedstock such as edible and non-edible vegetable oils, waste oil and animal fats and their advantages and disadvantages were reviewed according to the Web of Science (WOS) database over the timeframe of 1970–2020. The biodiesel feedstock has water or free fatty acid, but it will produce soap by reacting free fatty acids with an alkali catalyst when they present in high portion. This reaction is unfavourable and decreases the biodiesel product yield. This issue can be solved by designing multiple transesterification stages or by employing acidic catalysts to prevent saponification. The second solution is cheaper than the first one and even more applicable because of the abundant source of catalytic materials from a waste product such as rice husk ash, chicken eggshells, fly ash, red mud, steel slag, and coconut shell and lime mud. The overview of the advantages and disadvantages of different homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysts is summarized, and the catalyst promoters and prospects of biodiesel production are also suggested. This research provides beneficial ideas for catalyst synthesis from waste for the transesterification process economically, environmentally and industrially.

Sustainable renewable energy production is being intensely disputed worldwide because fossil fuel resources are declining gradually.

1. Introduction

Worldwide energy demand is rising rapidly because of the fast industrialization and population growth, influencing fossil fuel use. The price of mineral-based fuels, such as diesel, natural gas, and petroleum, has increased since the 1970s because of the rapid consumption and reduction of these fossil fuels. 1 Substitute fuel has attracted significant attention because of global greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of fossil fuels. There is an increasing interest in using new knowledge and employing diverse biofuels to convert bio-energy in many industrialized nations that are cost-effective compared to fossil fuels. 2 In this respect, fatty acid methyl esters (biodiesel fuel) originating from animal fat and vegetable oil transesterification reaction (edible and non-edible plant oils, fungi and animal fats) have received considerable attention in recent years as sustainable, biodegradable, sulfur- and aromatic-free and harmless fuels. 3

Biodiesel is a renewable and clean energy source and a mixture of alkyl esters got through the transesterification of several renewable resources such as animal fats and edible vegetable oils such as palm oil, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil and algal oil. It has qualities that are almost identical to petro-derived diesel and may thus be used in diesel engines with minor modifications. It's also biodegradable, non-toxic, and emits fewer hazardous pollutants than traditional petro-diesel. Nevertheless, the high cost of resources accounts for about 88% of the total biodiesel generation cost. 4 Hence, non-edible oil feedstock for biodiesel generation, such as waste cooking oil, natural fat, jatropha oil, waste grease and micro-algae, has gained a significant interest in recent years. 5 These feedstocks are difficult to handle because they mainly have water and high free fatty acid (FFA) contents, which require pretreatment for commercially acceptable conversion efficiency 6 in the presence of a suitable catalyst. 7 Another vital phase in the transesterification process is the selection of the catalyst that defines the cost of production, leading to the economic obstacle. The catalyst is the kingpin in the transesterification reaction and as seen in Fig. 1 , from 1970 to 2021, there were 2260 articles published in the WoS journals using biodiesel and catalyst in the title search. The number of publications and citations is growing rapidly from 2003, and the total link strength, which specifies the total strength of the co-authorship links of a given country with other countries, was also provided. It can be seen that the top ten most active countries with the highest total link strength in sequence are Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, China, Australia, Vietnam, Nigeria, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Alcoholysis or transesterification reactions with a base, acid, enzyme, and other catalysts were used for biodiesel production. 8 Biocatalysts and chemical catalysts are being examined, and both have their benefits and drawbacks. These catalysts are reported to be environmentally friendly and budget-friendly materials in industrial uses. 9 Chemical catalysts comprise homogeneous factors (acid or alkali), heterogeneous agents (solid alkali or acid catalyst), supercritical fluids (SCFs) and heterogeneous nanostructured catalysts. 9 Homogeneous catalysts can cause complications in biodiesel production, such as saponification of the feedstock by which vast quantity of by-products such as undesirable soap was produced by the reaction of the catalyst with the FFA, which then prevents the splitting of the FAME and glycerol and reduces the catalyst. 7 Although transesterification with homogeneous catalysts is easy and quick, it has drawbacks in catalyst separation, reusability, and renewable resources. 10

The context knowledge shows the growing significance of biodiesel processing, and the literature review below reveals the scarcity of scientometric research in this exciting field (see Table 1 ). The current research aims to summarize the feasibility and the challenges of biodiesel production using various heterogeneous and homogeneous catalytic processes from different waste feedstocks. The Web of Science (WOS) database was used to conduct the bibliometric study. Catalyst promoters' importance and contribution to biodiesel generation have not been adequately examined yet. There was no match for the four words of biodiesel, catalyst, promoter and review at the topic search of the WOS website. Built upon the favorable properties of catalysts and the importance of non-noble metal promoters in the transesterification process, this study also aims to gather information on synthesizing non-noble promoters supported on various organic and inorganic metal oxides to get a high biodiesel yield.

2. Biodiesel and its application

Biodiesel is a monoalkyl ester of long-chain fatty acid oil derivative made from sustainable lipid sources such as animal fats and vegetable oils 18 by a chemical modification process called transesterification. The pure type of biodiesel can be utilized as a car engine fuel. It is typically employed as an additive to diesel to decrease hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulates from diesel fuel cars. 19 The first attempts of biofuels engine operation (peanut oil engine run by Rudolf Diesel in 1900 and vegetable oil run engines in 1930s) as well the first industrial biofuels were based on food crops. 20 Subsequently, a diversity of source materials was examined and developed universally. Currently, over 350 herbs have been recognized as biodiesel sources. 21,22

The application of biodiesel has been noticeably increasing during the last decades. As seen in Fig. 2 , biodiesel applications had risen from 7.3 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 1990 to 87.1 mtoe in 2020. The Renewable Fuel Standard, which was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, was the first to mandate the use of specific biofuel amounts. The goal was to use 4 billion gallons of renewables in transportation fuels in 2006 to increase their percentage over time. The lessening of the country's reliance on oil has been the driving concept of biofuel programmes. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set a goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20% over the following ten years. The 2008 Biomass Program has two essential purposes. The first is, by 2030, to reduce gasoline use by 30% as compared to 2004 levels. Second, corn-derived ethanol is used to generate cellulosic ethanol. 23 Algal biomass has been used as food and feed supplements for humans and animals, fertilisers in agriculture, nutritional supplements and medication in the pharmaceutical industry, and phycocolloids in the phycocolloid industry. 24,25 Higher prices for animal feeds have resulted from the growing use of agricultural commodities for biofuels; nevertheless, the more significant substitution of co-products for conventional feedstuffs in feed rations mitigates the input cost increases experienced by livestock and poultry farmers. In the next ten years, growth in agricultural commodities for biofuels is likely to continue. However, at a slower pace in major producing nations, government-imposed grain usage restrictions for biofuels are achieved, and new non-agricultural feedstocks are commercialised. 26 A previous work, 27 which examines renewable portfolio standards in the electricity sector and can be extended to transportation fuels, provides a detailed explanation of how such factors affect energy price. As a result, domestic fuel consumption may fall, offsetting the rise in global fuel consumption. The presence of biofuel subsidies mitigates the impact of any increases in domestic fuel prices. 28 The replacement of feedstocks should be explored to reduce biofuel synthesis or operating costs. Waste cooking oil and waste animal fat, for example, are viewed as preferable feedstocks for biodiesel production compared to edible vegetable oil since they are both inexpensive and plentiful. Furthermore, as seen in Fig. 3 , biodiesel has been used in an inclusive variety of applications such as bus 29,30 and rail 31,32 transportations, commercial steamships, 33–35 heavy trucks, 36,37 power systems such as generators, 38–40 agricultural machinery, 41–43 heating oil in domestic 44–46 and commercial 47–49 boilers, and aircraft. 50–52 Thus, biodiesel has been gaining more attention as a resource for the growing demand from several industrial sections because of its numerous advantages over fossil fuels.

3. Sources of biodiesel

One of the essential aspects of biodiesel generation, which is related to 75% of the entire cost, is choosing suitable feedstock for the process. 53–55 Furthermore, biodiesel fuel quality also hinges on resource use, generation process, and origin country. 56 As seen in Fig. 4 , we could categorize renewable biodiesel resources into four major categories, namely edible and nonedible vegetable oils, waste oil and animal fats. 18,55,57 These feedstocks comprise a combination of fatty acid alkyl esters, which will be changed into biodiesel after the transesterification and esterification processes. 58,59

3.1. Edible vegetable oil

One of the eco-friendly workable biodiesel feedstocks which can be formed regionally is edible vegetable oil. Edible vegetable oils like groundnut, 60,61 wheat, 62,63 barley, 64,65 sesame seed, 66,67 safflower, 68,69 canola, 70,71 coconut, 72,73 rapeseed, 74,75 rice bran, 76,77 sunflower, 78,79 olive, 80,81 soybean, 82,83 palm, 84,85 peanut 86,87 and corn 88,89 have been employed for the generation of biodiesel and are useful as a diesel alternate. Meanwhile, most biodiesel is manufactured from eatable oils; there are several statements that many obstacles might occur. 90 The disadvantage of edible oils for the source of biodiesel is the decrease of food resources, which results in the food crisis. 91 Besides, the harmful effect of biodiesel generation from edible oils on the earth is ecosystem destruction and deforestation. 90 Most important is the high cost of the biodiesel generation from the edible oils which makes it not economically feasible and not suitable for long-term usage. These issues can be handled by employing alternative or greener, lower-cost and reliable oil resources such as animal fats, inedible and waste cooking oil for biodiesel generation.

3.2. Non-edible vegetable oil

A large diversity of plants that create non-edible oil can be regarded for biodiesel generation. Non-edible oils contain toxic compounds, which make them not suitable for human utilization. 92 Numerous oils obtained from grains or seeds of inedible plants are possible resources for biodiesel generation. These sorts of feedstocks are inexpensively obtainable and mostly labeled as non-edible oil, dominating any food competition. Studies have used numerous non-edible oils for biodiesel production such as linseed, 93,94 tobacco seed, 95,96 cottonseed, 97,98 rubber seed, 99,100 neem, 101,102 moringa, 103,104 pongamia, 105,106 algae, 107,108 jatropha, 109,110 Karanja, 111,112 mahua, 113,114 jojoba, 115,116 cumaru 117–119 and camellia. 120,121 The considerable interest for transforming inedible oil to biodiesel is continuously related to the high contents of free fatty acids (FFAs), 92 which inhibits the separation of glycerin and ester by produced soap after reaction with an alkaline catalyst. This issue can be solved by designing multiple transesterification stages. Over the use of multiple transesterification processes, the nonedible oils will prove to be a more efficient and environmentally friendly substitute in biodiesel production.

3.3. Animal fat

The fats were demonstrated to be a feasible resource when associated with waste cooking and vegetable oils in production and economy. Synthetically, biodiesel is a combination of fatty acid alkyl ester (FAAE) derived from triglyceride molecules. Waste animal fats are considered one of the sources of triglycerides. Because the value of the feedstock is enhanced after conversion, they are a viable resource for biodiesel production. 122 Moreover, leftover natural fats obtained from leather, slaughterhouses and meat process factories are a considerably probable source for biodiesel generation because of their chemical lifelessness, no corrosion, enhanced calorie level and viable feedstocks. In addition to meat processing scum, leather industry fleshing wastes have shown to be a viable source of fat for biodiesel generation when mixed with regular diesel for combustion-based applications. 123,124 However, since these wastes are useless, they are thrown into the environment. 125 As a result, there has been a lot of interest in using animal fat waste as a cheap source of feedstock in biodiesel synthesis. Numerous papers and studies on techniques, reactor design, applications, mixes with diesel fuel, catalysts, and operating conditions have been carried out. However, both the acid catalyst and the heterogeneous catalyst may be used to convert waste animal fats. 126–128

3.4. Waste oil

Waste cooking oil is used as a low-cost feedstock all around the globe, with industrialised nations producing a million gallons of waste cooking oil each day. There is a considerable quantity of waste cooking oil being made annually all around the globe. 129 The enormous mass of waste is thrown into landfills and rivers forbiddenly, producing pollution in the environment. If waste cooking oil is the operational feedstock for producing biodiesel at a lower price, a large amount of waste oil available is adequate for sustainable biodiesel production. Waste yields, i.e. , lignocellulosic feedstocks and inedible unwanted oils such as waste cooking oil or vegetable scums, are the unavoidable consequence of edible oil intake as a usual ration of the human diet. Therefore, biodiesel fuel production from edible waste oil is considered a significant stage for decreasing and recycling waste oil and levies no extra cost and environmental hazard. Waste oils, however, contain small amounts of FFAs and water in a supplement to oxidized compounds, such as aldehydes, epoxides, and polymers. The large-scale generation of biodiesel fuel from unwanted eatable oils is currently achieved by a substance reaction employing alkaline catalysts. According to the quantity of produced waste cooking oils in all countries, it can be showed that diesel fuel could not utterly be substituted by biodiesel production from this source. Nevertheless, a considerable diesel fuel volume can be produced from waste cooking oils, which would partially decline the reliance on fossil fuels. Using waste cooking oils for biodiesel generation in the transesterification reaction causes the escalation of the water, FFAs and other impurities that can undesirably affect the transesterification reaction while using alkali catalysts. 130–132 Besides, waste cooking oils may require a pretreatment procedure to meet proper oil properties for the transesterification reaction because their features such as specific heat and viscosity might be changed during cooking. 133 Nevertheless, other options such as employing acid catalysis transesterification, 134–136 supercriticality 137 and enzyme catalysis 133 can be used to make the production of biodiesel a more practical process.

4. Catalysts for biodiesel production

For the manufacture of biodiesel, transesterification methods are widely employed. Transesterification, as shown in Fig. 5 , is a reversible reaction and is obtained by reactant combination. Strong acid or base components can be introduced to the system as catalysts. On a large scale, potassium or sodium methanolates are typically utilized. Heterogeneous catalysts are beneficial in this procedure because they are simple to remove from the result and may be reused. Solid base catalysts are advantageous in biodiesel production because they can be readily separated and reused in the process. Conversely, since it needs multiple chemical reagents and a multi-step preparation process, the available catalyst is costly, preventing future uses of this kind of catalyst. 138 Materials such as CH 3 OK, CH 3 ONa, NaOH, and KOH, considered a solid alkali catalyst, are examined for biodiesel generation. 9 Nevertheless, alkali metal alkoxide is found to be more effective than hydroxide. 139 There are many homogeneous, enzymatic and heterogeneous catalysts that have been examined for biodiesel generation from various feedstocks. Among all, calcium oxide-based catalysts are favorable for facilitating biodiesel development and purification and reducing the cost of the biodiesel generation process because of the comprehensive variety of practical raw resources. An additional way of lowering the biodiesel cost and reducing the waste disposal obstacles is utilizing naturally calcium-rich waste substances such as animal and bird bones, mollusk and hen eggshells. 9,140

4.1. Homogeneous catalysts

Homogeneous catalysis is a reaction when the reacting components and catalysts are mixed in a single matter state. Instances of homogeneous catalysis are basic, acid, enzymatic, and organometallic catalysis. These catalysts are being used because of the straightforward application and shorter reaction time needed to convert feedstock to the product in biodiesel industries. 12 652 published works were discovered using the Web of Science data's subject search engine, including title, abstract, author keywords and keywords, plus fields inside the record and keywords like homogenous, catalyst, transesterification, and biodiesel. The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set at 40 and 17 keywords, respectively, to simplify the bibliometric analysis, and the findings of network visualization in Fig. 6 reveal two diverse clusters. The density of items at each node determines the size of each node in the keyword density visualization plat. Keywords with a larger circle size appear more often; keywords with a smaller circle size appear less frequently. Furthermore, the closer the things are together, the stronger their bond. The term “transesterification” had the highest total link strength, while “soybean oil” had the second-highest full link strength. During the period 1970–2020, these terms become more significant in homogeneous catalysts for biodiesel production research. Table 2 demonstrates the initial 17 keywords based on total link strength.

Homogeneous chemical catalysts have some merits, such as easy activity optimization, high turnover frequency and selectivity, and a high reaction rate. 141,142 The most usual homogeneous catalysts used for transesterification reactions are sodium methoxide (CH 3 ONa), sodium (NaOH) and potassium (KOH) hydroxides. Using CH 3 ONa as catalysts is expensive but more applicable than KOH and NaOH compounds. CH 3 ONa was reported to be the best active basic catalyst, which prompted noble phase separation. 143 Further, CH 3 ONa will help to avoid the water and soap formation. 144 Two mechanisms are convoluted in the transesterification process, dependent on whether acid catalysts or basic catalysts are applied, which are discussed below.

4.2. Acidic catalysts

The transesterification reaction is catalyzed by Brønsted acids, in preference of sulfonic 145–147 and sulfuric acid. 148–150 According to the WOS data employing the title search by keywords such as “transesterification”, “soybean”, “acid”, and “catalyst”, 12 articles were identified and are listed in Table 3 .

Fig. 7 illustrates the mechanisms of transesterification reactions of oil with acid catalysts for monoglycerides, and it can be extended to di- and triglyceride. 163 The carbonyl group protonation of the ester results in carbocation II, which, after nucleophilic alcohol strike, creates the tetrahedral intermediate III, which reduces glycerol for the new ester IV formation and catalyst H + regeneration. Transesterification reaction via acid catalysts is more applicable for unrefined or waste oils, but the downside is that acidic catalytic samples are suggestively less active than alkali ones. 164 Moreover, the ratio of methanol to oil in the transesterification process with acid catalysts is high with a low reaction rate; therefore, these catalysts are not gaining much attention as basic catalysts. 165 Even though, because of the existence of FFAs in high quantity in such oils and fat, homogeneous alkaline catalysts are not recommended. To solve this issue, free fatty acids are firstly esterified to FAME ( Fig. 8 ) using an acid catalyst 127 and thereafter, the transesterification reaction is implemented, usually by employing alkaline catalysts. In the pre-esterification technique, it is required to separate the esterified oil and the homogeneous acid catalyst, which is the principal disadvantage of this technique. This issue can be handled with the application of a heterogeneous acid catalyst. 166

4.3. Basic catalyst

The most often used catalysts in an industrial biodiesel production facility are base catalysts such as potassium (KOH) and sodium (NaOH) hydroxides. The following factors contribute to this: (1) cheap cost compared to heterogeneous and enzymatic catalysts, (2) market availability, and (3) ability to accelerate transesterification under moderate reaction conditions efficiently. 169 Twenty-three journal articles were detected from the WOS data and are shown in Table 4 following title search using keywords such as “transesterification”, “soybean”, “base”, and “catalyst”. Basic catalysts are typically favoured to acid catalysts because of their more excellent activity and the lower process temperatures needed than acid-catalyzed transesterification. For example, reaction temperatures of 80 to 120 °C have been recorded for acid-catalyzed transesterification by H 2 SO 4 , while basic homogeneous catalysis may be successful at ambient temperatures. 170 Basic catalysts have a high transesterification activity rate at low temperatures and pressures. 171 Previous research has used CaO and MgO as catalysts to study the effect of catalyst basicity on the yield of products. 172 They found that substantial residual oil quantity was produced because the basic centres prevented the secondary cracking. The reaction mechanism for forming fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) is described as follows in Fig. 9 . Among the different catalytic systems employed in the transesterification of waste feedstock by employing the basic catalysts, it is confirmed that strong basic properties are essential to achieve this reaction. Cation-exchanged catalysts are unsuitable, whereas systems in the form of a simple oxide with a high surface area show some exciting performances. The kinetics of homogeneous basic transesterification are extremely rapid; however, there is a collateral saponification process that lowers biodiesel production efficiency. 173 To avoid biodiesel production losses due to saponification processes, alcohol and oil must be dried, and the oil must have the fewest FFAs possible (less than 0.1 wt%). Furthermore, there are many disadvantages to homogeneous basic catalysis, such as its sensitivity to moisture and free fatty acid. 174

The strong base (NaOH or KOH) catalysed through a homogenous transesterification process has certain constraints, such as product separation, which leads to increased biodiesel production costs. 11 The method involved numbers of washings and purification stages to sustain the specified condition. It was reasonably challenging to eliminate the K/Na residues lasting in the product, and the split of glycerin also caused practical experiments. The whole process cost might be increased using a higher amount of water in the washing step. 199 These factors indicate that using basic or acid heterogeneous catalysts, or better yet, a heterogeneous catalyst with acid and basic characteristics, may result in a more environmentally friendly and less expensive biodiesel manufacturing process. The triglycerides are transesterified at the basic internal sites (–O − ), whereas the free fatty acids are esterified at the acid exterior sites (–H + ). 200

4.4. Organometallic catalysis

Organometallic catalysts are broadly employed as homogeneous catalyst phase in the forms of catalysts to enhance the rates of industrial chemical reaction and stoichiometrically in the research field. Organometallic catalysis has had a significant effect on organic synthesis during the past 50 years, allowing for the discovery of hitherto unthinkable reactions. 201 Rapid advances in the research of organometallic and coordination compounds have resulted in the invention and commercialization of several catalytic processes using these compounds as catalysts. 202,203 The selectivity of organometallic catalysis is a major benefit that has led to its broad use by industry. 204 Transition metal compounds induce catalysis reactions that may be rationalised as a succession of stoichiometric phases connected cyclically to create a catalytic cycle. The coordination or attachment of substrate(s) to a metal core is the first step in the creation of an organometallic complex. The activated substrate(s) are then subjected to a sequence of intramolecular transformations, which may also include external groups and substrate(s) and the breakdown of the organometallic compound to provide reaction products. Platinum metal group complexes have outperformed all other organometallic catalysts in a variety of synthetic techniques. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, it has won three Nobel awards in this field in a row. 205 Tin( ii ) catalysts are also broadly applied on large scales to synthesise the polyesters and for polymerization of l -lactide. 206 On the other hand, organotin alkoxy is widely described in transesterification reactions. 207,208 Another widely generated organometallic complexes in the globe are organotin compounds. 209 They are used as catalysts in a variety of industrial processes in which esters are produced via (trans)esterification, such as the synthesis of fatty acid alkyl esters (FAAEs), 210 polyesters 211,212 and lactones. 213 The proposed transesterification mechanism of the tin based organometallic catalyst is shown in Fig. 10 . This mechanism involves three necessary steps, (1) associative exchange of the alcohol onto the tin compound; (2) coordination and insertion of the carboxylic group into the Sn–O link of the tin alkoxide produced in (1); and (3) associative exchange of the intermediate. Unfortunately, we couldn't find any published article in the WOS database for a title search of two keywords of “organometallic” and “biodiesel”. However by using “organometallic” and “transesterification” words, only three papers were detected. 214–216

4.5. Enzymatic catalysis

The enzymatic reaction is more strategic than the other systems because of its higher product quality, no wastewater production, affluent product recovery, favourable reaction situations, and no saponification. The enzyme, also named lipase, is the primary constituent in enzymatic reaction that can act as a catalyst in the extensive diversity of applications, including FFAs. 217 There are fewer process stages, less wastewater and energy required for biodiesel production when enzymes are introduced as a catalyst in the system. Enzymes are recyclable and compatible with differences in the raw material variances; thus, they are hypothetically more beneficial than acid or alkaline catalysts. Additionally, they cause the increase of the separation of the products and produce a superb glycerol quality. 218–220 Lipases from different sources have been investigated for their transesterification activity on other oils such as jatropha, 221,222 tallow, 223,224 soybean oil, 225,226 sunflower oil, 227,228 and waste cooking oil. 229,230 Nevertheless, owing to its high cost, sluggish reaction rates, enzyme inhibition, and loss of function, enzyme transesterification is not extensively utilized. 231,232

The most common method of decreasing free fatty acid of feedstocks such as oil and fat is the pre-esterification of free fatty acid by homogeneous acid catalysts before utilizing base catalyst transesterification reaction. 127,129 In this technique, it is necessary to discrete the homogeneous acid catalyst from oil which is the key disadvantage of this method. 233 In general, all homogeneous catalysts are linked with some other drawbacks, which might escalate the production cost because of wastewater emission and separation steps. 234 The product of glycerin after transesterification reaction is low when a homogeneous catalyst is used. Then multi-stage purifications with the lengthy process are needed, 79,235 which negatively affects the total costs of the transesterification process. Furthermore, the transesterification reaction via homogeneous base catalysts is not suitable for several feedstocks. Homogeneous catalysts are environmentally harmful in comparison with heterogeneous ones because they are naturally hygroscopic. 236 Homogeneous catalysts are often highly selective but not particularly active or stable. On the other hand, heterogeneous catalysts are highly active (you can run them at higher temperatures because they are more robust), but they are not particularly selective.

4.6. Heterogeneous catalysts

Heterogeneous catalysts, typically in solid form, operate in a different phase in the reaction mixture of liquid compared to homogeneous catalysts. Homogeneous catalysts are corrosive, and they produce vast quantities of wastewater during the wash. Also, they give energy-intensive separation steps to separate the reaction constituents, and the catalyst cannot be effectively reused. Many results were reported to explore the activities of a range of heterogeneous materials to solve the many difficulties connected with homogeneous base and liquid acid such as alcoholysis catalysts. 237 There are many advantages for heterogeneous catalyst applications over homogeneous ones, such as high glycerol purities, easier recycling and removal of the used catalysts, massive wastewater amounts, and washing section eliminations. 238 Heterogeneous catalysts may also exist in distinct phases from the reactants, such as solid in liquid or aqueous reactants. As a result, heterogeneous catalysts may be suitable for excellent characteristics, including non-corrosion and easy separation. 239 The primary focus of recent advancement in heterogeneous catalysis research is developing recyclable solid catalysts for the most uncomplicated biodiesel production. 4 We have deliberately focused on trash assessment rather than creating renewable resources for catalytic applications in terms of material class. This is due to millions of waste disposed of as waste in a landfill without any pretreatment, which has been declared a source of organic pollution. Table 5 shows the stated production rates for a number of industrial and biological wastes discussed. Moreover, the biodiesel production cost will remarkably decrease by employing highly active waste-derived catalysts, which could also be suitable for large-scale applications. Various studies have shown the use of different waste resources such as rice husk ash, 240 chicken eggshells, 241 fly ash, 242 red mud, 243 steel slag, 244 coconut shell 245 and lime 246 for biodiesel production. The area of the application of wastes in catalysis has attracted increasing interest in recent years.

4.7. Rice husk ash

Rice lids 1% of the earth's surface and is a crucial food resource for many nations. 254 The outer layer of paddy is called rice husk, and it makes about 20–25% of its weight. It is separated during rice milling and is mainly utilised as a source of heat in businesses and households in India. The rice husk could be an excellent solid fuel because the rice husk specific properties includes ash, volatile substance and heating value at 12.8%, 74.0% and 16.3 MJ kg −1 , respectively. 255 The majority of the RHA component contains silica (∼95%) and other elements such as zinc, magnesium, copper, potassium, calcium, manganese and iron. 256,257 The RHA chemical composition and price point contribute to its good candidacy for industrial applications. The rice husk burning in the air always produces rice husk ash (RHA), 258 which is considered an agricultural by-product in most world continents. Its low costs make it a viable and robust material as a catalyst support. RHA can also be utilized to purify the biodiesel using extracted silica from rice husk ash. 259 RHA can be divided into amorphous, partial crystalline, and crystalline RHA. 260 The major component of RHA (83–90%) is amorphous silica. 261 Amorphous silica and carbon have potential commercial and scientific uses, and it is favoured over crystal silica because it is more reactive. 262 From 1970 to 2020, only seven papers have been detected in the WOS database using “rice husk ash” and “biodiesel” keywords in the title search. 256,258,263–267 These few published papers indicate a gap for catalyst development from RHA for biodiesel production studies. More particularly, there is a lot of interest in utilising silica from RHA to remove monoglyceride from crude biodiesel production since it is a by-product component of the biodiesel process that causes sedimentation in low-temperature environments. 268

4.8. Eggshells

Eggshell weighs roughly 10% of the entire mass of chicken eggs; an eggshell is the substantial solid waste formed from manufacturing and food processing plants. 269 The intact eggshell is around 700 nm thick and comprises two layers: an exterior microfilament-covered layer and an interior amorphous layer with a high electron density. Deteriorating eggshells, on the other hand, may reveal a middle layer with an intermediate electron density. The weight of the hen eggshell usually is 5–6 g with calcium carbonate composing 85–95% of the dry eggshell. 270 Waste eggshells are produced due to the enormous consumption of eggs, posing a significant waste disposal issue, especially in overpopulated nations like China and India. The discarded eggshells may cause disposal issues as well as contamination in the environment. The use of discarded eggshells as a raw material for catalyst synthesis reduces waste while also producing a heterogeneous alkali catalyst with high cost-effectiveness. The bird eggshell is a porous bio-ceramic produced in a cell-free environment at body temperature. 271 The eggshell is an entirely systematic structure with a polycrystalline organization through the solidified shell. 272 There are varieties of eggshells for different birds published in the WOS, listed in Table 6 (topic search) published during 1970–2020. As seen, there are only 151 published works in total, and there is also a lack of studies on many other types of edible eggs from different birds.

4.9. Fly ash

Fly ash, a solid waste produced by power stations, creates many difficulties; therefore, fly ash disposal is a critical issue 273 due to a large vacant area requirement to create the dump. Although fly ash is mainly utilised for construction materials and other civil engineering projects, a part of it is nevertheless dumped in ponds or landfills. Therefore, it has become critical to develop alternate ways for fly ash disposal or appropriate use, focusing on discovering new applications and recognising new types of recycling. As a result, an effort was undertaken to create a suitable fly ash-based heterogeneous catalyst for the transesterification process to make it useful in the form of a higher value-added product. The thermal stability of fly ash is high because it includes a complex mixture with high contents of SiO 2 with several metal oxides, such as CaO, MgO, Al 2 O 3 , and, particularly, Fe 2 O 3 . The mass compositions of fly ash components are shown in Fig. 11 . Moreover, some minor elements such as As, Ge, Hg, Ga, and a tinge of active metals (Mn, Cu, Cr, Co, Pb, Zn, and Ni) and rare earth elements might also exist in fly ash. 274 Fly ash is an appropriate substance for synthesising zeolites because of its textural, mineralogical, and chemical properties. The development of zeolites from the fly ash and their use as a catalyst for transesterification reaction eradicates the dumping obstacles. It changes waste and unwanted substances into a valuable and cheap alternative source. However, many investigations have stated the pozzolanic property of fly ash 275 which has been employed in base-catalyzed reactions. Coal fly ash, for example, has been used as a precursor in the preparation of basic zeolite Na-X for biodiesel synthesis through the transesterification of sunflower oil with methanol. 19 The role of fly ash as a catalyst in biodiesel generation was also explored. 19,20,29 Following the WOS database and title search of “fly”, “ash”, and “biodiesel”, there are 16 published works detected and are summarized in Table 7 . As seen in the table, the fly ash application for biodiesel has been started since 2012, and few publications were reported in this area. Therefore it could be beneficial to put the area of development of zeolites from fly ash waste for the transesterification process environmentally and industrially.

4.10. Red mud

Red mud is an undesirable byproduct of the Bayer alumina production process. Around 90 million tonnes of red mud are produced globally, implying that repurposing waste from one industry and enhancing another may result in a better and more efficient environment. 293 Red mud's unprotected disposal at landfill sites significantly affects the surrounding soils and groundwater due to its alkaline nature and high metallic content. 294 The utilization of red mud as a catalyst for biodiesel generation delivers economical and environmentally friendly ways of reusing these sorts of wastes, expressively dropping its environmental toxicity and decreasing the biodiesel cost to make biodiesel reasonable in comparison with petroleum diesel. Only in the presence of sulphur did the red mud catalyst show acceptable activity, and the reaction product distributions were similar to those observed in the hydroliquefaction of cellulose and lignin. 295 The approximate main elements of red mud are SiO 2 , Fe 2 O 3 , CaO, TiO 2 , Al 2 O 3 , and Na 2 O and are shown in Fig. 12 , so red mud can support the preparation of catalysts. The use of the red mud catalyst for the manufacture of bio-diesel was described by Liu et al. 296 The results showed that red mud is a highly active catalyst due to its inherent catalytic characteristics. Senthil et al. 297 revealed that using red mud as a catalyst improves fuel properties while reducing pollution effects. However, under the title search of the WOS record, only six papers were found and are listed in Table 8 , which started in 2013. Therefore, by considering the alkaline nature of red mud, the catalyst development from this waste could be highly effective in the transesterification of oil with methanol.

4.11. Iron and steel slag

Research on the application and improvement of solid waste elements from bulk chemical, petrochemical, metallurgical, steel and nuclear industries is significant for both enterprises and academics. Many specialists are interested in the slag recycling issue resulting from the pyrometallurgical treatment of natural materials since it offers the possibility of turning slags into valuable products while reducing waste. 302 Steelmaking operations produce iron and steel by-products in two ways: iron ore-based steelmaking and scrap-based steelmaking. In all, the first one is used to create 70% of the world's steel. 303 Slag materials generally consist of silica, oxides of particular metals in a given ratio that hinges on the original constitution of the element and even free metal species. 304 The central chemical forms of the steel slug are presented in Fig. 13 ; hence it is an attractive material to develop catalysts. Other elements such as Mg, Mn, Al, Ti, and V may contribute a considerable proportion to the slag composition depending on the provenance of the iron ore. 305 Therefore, attention to the industrial slag utilization in the catalyst preparation has been newly enhanced. Also, since the CaO fraction in LD-slag is high, it might be probable that it has beneficial catalytic properties for the transesterification process. Kabir et al. 306 developed a zeolite from steel slag for pyrolysis of oil palm mesocarp fibres. They showed that the composition of bio-oil grew lighter and more stable, and that a large volume of metal oxides plays an essential role in the catalytic activity of steel slag. Another investigation explores that catalysts from steelmaking slags have an excellent performance in coal tar conversion to gas products. 307 Unluckily, few reports have previously described the application of slag waste as a catalyst. As seen in Table 9 , only six articles were published using two words of “slag” and “biodiesel” in the title search of the WOS database. Hence, the improvement of iron and steel slag catalysts in biodiesel production is an exciting subject in opinions of the appropriate waste resource deployment and its application in energy chemical production.

4.12. Coconut

Coconut shell nanoparticles are selected for biodiesel additions because they are a commonly accessible agricultural waste, have a cheap cost, and have greater calorific values. 314 Coconut shells are categorized as solid waste produced from agricultural activities involving a yearly generation of nearly 3.18 million tonnes. 315 Coconut shells represent more than 60% of home waste quantity and present severe disposal problems for environments, 316 and their chemical compositions are displayed in Fig. 14 . Adding coconut shells into the brick will turn the coconut shells from waste material into potential materials that can be used to produce green building materials where large agricultural and industrial waste is discharged, and it will give twice the over benefits of decrease in the construction material cost other than disposal of wastes. It also outperforms other crushed granite aggregates in terms of impact, crushing, and abrasion resistance. 317 Furthermore, the coconut shell's high carbon content, low ash level, and great strength and hardness make it ideal for catalyst development. 318 Azizah et al. 319 developed a catalyst via sulfonation of partially carbonized coconut shells by determined sulfuric acid and produced 88.15% biodiesel yield from palm oil. Yano et al. 320 employed potassium supported on coconut-shell activated carbon to generate biodiesel from the transesterification of palm oil. They achieved 26.98% of the reaction conversion at 60 °C. Another study performed by Achanai et al. 321 used potassium hydroxide supported on coconut shell activated carbon and obtained 86.3% biodiesel yield from waste cooking oil. Coconut shells, a non-degradable material and an environmental concern could be used as an effective heterogeneous catalyst for biodiesel generation, a green energy source. More interestingly, we could find only four published papers 319,321–323 in the WOS title search of “biodiesel”, “coconut”, and “shell” in the period of 1970–2020. Of significance, the synthesis of new catalysts with low costs and high activity from coconut shells could play crucial roles in the environmental and industrial aspects of green and sustainable catalysts for biodiesel production.

4.13. Lime mud

Lime mud produced in pulp mills as a waste mainly comprises CaCO 3 with residues of MgCO 3 and some different ores. Lime mud is being employed as an eco-friendly and economic heterogeneous basic catalyst for the transesterification reaction. The major lime mud component, calcium carbonate, could be improved into calcium oxide throughout calcination. 325 Almost 100 tonnes of lime mud is generated as a by-product of 550 tonnes of pulp production. 326 The paper industry continues to produce millions of tonnes of lime mud each year, increasing with the growing demand for papers, with no efficient use anticipated. Other components in lime mud, such as silicon, magnesium, aluminium, and ferric, contribute to its alkaline nature. 327 The chemical constituents of lime mud are represented in Fig. 15 . So far, lime mud is principally discarded outside, resulting in a severe environmental crisis and causing land occupation. According to the title search of the WOS database, using “lime”, “mud”, and “transesterification” words, there were only five papers detected from 1970 to 2020. 325,327–330 Hui et al. 327 conducted the transesterification of edible peanut oil via KF supported on lime mud catalyst. They obtained 99.09% oil conversion at 64 °C, with a methanol to oil ratio of 12 : 1 and 5 wt% of catalyst. Another research was performed by Agus et al. 329 employing modified lime mud base catalysts by soda–lime calcination for the transesterification of canola oil. They produced biodiesel with a yield of 99.6% at 60 °C, 4 wt% catalyst amount and a methanol to oil ratio of 12 : 1. Consequently, there is a lack of study on recycling and utilizing the lime mud for catalysis reaction, especially in the transesterification process and biodiesel production.

4.14. Catalyst promoters

Promoters are not catalysts but mixed in small quantities with the catalysts to increase their efficiency in the reaction. At present, little interest has been shifted to applying structure promoters for CaO, providing a stable template with a high surface area, which could produce more excellent catalytic activity performance. Arsalanfar et al. 332 studied the effect of Li, Cs, K, Rb and Ru promoters over the Fe–Co–Mn catalyst. They illustrated that the MgO/FeCoMn catalyst had revealed enhanced catalytic activity for converting synthesis gas into liquid fuels. Mohebbi et al. 333 studied the effect of the Mo/B-ZSM-5 nano-catalyst in the free fatty acid esterification reaction. They found that the molybdenum promoter improved the crystallinity and the acid site concentration but reduced the acid site strength. Other researchers used the NiCoPt promoter over FAU zeolite for the oleic acid esterification reaction. 334 They achieved 93% oleic acid conversion at 343 K. To study the catalytic activity in the partial hydrogenation of soybean oil-derived fatty acid methyl esters and enhance the oxidative stability of biodiesel, Thunyaratchatanon et al. 335 employed sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), and barium (Ba) promoters for the Pd/SiO 2 catalyst. The most significant turnover frequency was due to the low basic site density of Pd–Ba/SiO 2 . Lingmei et al. 336 employed La, Ce, Zr, and Mn promoters over the Fe( ii )–Zn-based catalyst for biodiesel generation from rapeseed oil. All the catalysts have comparable crystal structures, but the catalyst with 1 wt% La promoters had superior catalytic activity in the transesterification reactions. The results confirmed the high potential of the development of catalysts with promoters for industrial applications.

4.15. Biodiesel waste products

Glycerol, biodiesel washing wastewaters, methanol, and solid residues are biodiesel's most significant residues and by-products. Glycerol is the by-product that has sparked the most interest, as it can generate the most revenue for the biodiesel industry. Glycerin can be used to make various biotechnology products with high added value, such as ethanol, citric acid, 1,3 propanediol, and biosurfactants. The large amount of glycerin produced by biodiesel production worldwide means that renewable raw materials will be plentiful and inexpensive in the coming years. 337 For example, in 2007, the price of refined glycerol in the United States was painfully low, around $0.30 per pound (compared to $0.70 before the expansion of biodiesel production). As a result, the price of crude glycerol fell from around $0.25 to $0.05 per pound. 338 Fermentative glycerol metabolism is of particular interest due to the highly reduced nature of carbon in glycerol and the cost advantage of anaerobic processes. Low glycerol prices have a particularly negative impact on the biodiesel industry. Many now regard crude glycerol as a “waste stream” with a disposal cost associated with it, although it was once considered a desirable co-product that could contribute to the economic viability of biodiesel production. 339 As a result, developing long-term techniques for exploiting this organic source material is critical. Glycerol has been converted into valuable chemicals using various techniques and procedures, including acetylation to make acetins, esterification to convert glycerol into several kinds of ester, ammoxidation to produce acrylonitrile, and gasification and steam reforming to produce synthesis gas. Pyrolysis is another advantageous process that involves heat degradation in the absence of oxygen. The formation of organic liquids, gases, and char is aided by lower process temperatures and more extended vapor residence periods. Certain researchers developed multiple strategies for using glycerol as an energy source. Jo-Han et al. 340 employed microwave-assisted and carbonaceous catalytic pyrolysis of crude glycerol from biodiesel waste to generate energy for a brief period. They discovered that the fraction of product phases is most influenced by the duration spent within the quartz reactor, followed by the reaction temperature. Bühler et al. 341 examined glycerol's ionic processes and pyrolysis as competing reaction routes in near- and supercritical water. They observed that the primary products of the glycerol breakdown were hydrogen, carbon dioxide, allyl alcohol, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ethanol, methanol, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde. They suggested that the improvements and alternatives inside the ionic part of the mechanism and the additions concerning the interference of ionic and free radical reaction steps may lead to a better and more general global reaction model for the decomposition of glycerol in high-pressurized water. The conversion of waste into portable and energy profit positive products by pyrolysis makes crude glycerol a possible option for bioenergy production of bio-oil and syngas.

4.16. Prospects

The most significant factors for operative biodiesel production are the type of catalyst and feedstock. As a result, there is a clear need to find a modern and efficient method for mass production that reduces response time, manufacturing costs, and energy consumption. Feedstock selection is critical in biodiesel production, affecting various factors, including price, yield, composition, and purity. Along the way, research needs to be expedited to enhance the existing performance of biodiesel sources. Collecting waste oil, animal fat, edible and non-edible vegetable oils as a source of biodiesel and building even small factories in suburban areas to utilize these wastes to produce biodiesel is highly recommended. Additionally, attempts have been made to use waste necessity to get government's funding, such as tax relief, and enforce the collection, use, and passage of waste substances to such factories by residents and municipality. Selection and supply of suitable feedstock concentrate on maintaining non-renewable feedstocks, but it contains various parts and covers many related elements to offer assistance for current and prospective biodiesel production. Numerous applicable methods can be stated as it is logical to fulfil the associated aspects of conducting a low-cost transesterification process for biodiesel production. In the recent decade, a significant development to seize the limitations of homogeneous catalysts has been made by achieving insight into the heterogeneous catalyst synthesis from low cost and waste materials such rice husk ash, chicken eggshells, fly ash, red mud, steel slag, coconut shell and lime mud for biodiesel production. These wastes are highly desirable to consider development because of the presence of a high portion of silica, alumina, iron, calcium oxide, and many other valuable elements in their structures. However, it still lacks research on developing highly active catalysts from eggshells of birds other than chicken, such as duck, ostrich, goose, caviar, turkey, emu, hilsa, seagull turtle, pheasant, and rhea. Extension studies on the development of catalysts from red mud, iron and steel slag, coconut, lime mud, and zeolites from fly ash are desirable because of the low level of records in the WOS database. Another way of overcoming homogeneous catalyst limitations is by employing ionic liquids as a reusable and eco-friendly catalyst applicable to various feedstocks. 342 Further investigations on the application of promoters such as Co, Ni, Pt, Ce, Mg, La, Zr, and Mn for heterogeneous catalyst development for transesterification reactions are recommended. The ionic liquid can be reused constantly, so it has possible application in biodiesel production. Application of biocatalysts for transesterification processes is also a novel approach and needs comprehensive investigation. It is also essential to focus on the economic analysis of the cost of biodiesel production using biological catalysts such as free lipase and traditionally immobilized lipase biocatalysts.

5. Conclusions

Worldwide demands for renewable, eco-friendly and sustainable fuels are rising rapidly because of the increasing environmental pollution from petroleum fuels and decreasing fossil fuel resources. In recent years, biodiesel, which has environmental advantages produced from renewable feedstocks, has become a more desirable fuel. Even though crude oil directly impacts the development of biodiesel technology, many biodiesel-related research initiatives are still prone to swings. Various biodiesel production approaches, including mass transfer limits, extended residence durations, scalability of the technology, and costly equipment, continue to offer hurdles. The current review studies aid in identifying beneficial developments, challenges, and opportunities in various aspects of biodiesel production. According to the literature, the main cost of biodiesel generation belongs to the feedstocks; thus, choosing a suitable source of biodiesel is significant in a cheap biodiesel production system. The search for valuable biodiesel sources must emphasise feedstock that does not affect food sources, does not lead to land-clearing, and offers greenhouse-gas declines. Biodiesel synthesis from algae and waste cooking oil is technically sound and cost-effective compared to typical vegetable oil and animal fat transesterification. From the review mentioned above, studies depict that catalysts play a crucial role in developing biodiesel. Few researchers have used homogeneous catalysts for pre-esterification and transesterification of various waste feedstocks. However, the leading disadvantage of the pre-esterification technique is the requirement of separation of the esterified oil and the homogeneous acid catalyst. This problem can be solved with the use of heterogeneous acid catalysts. However, biodiesel is presently not reasonable from an economic point of view, and more studies and technical development are required. As a suggestion, further heterogeneous catalytic development such as ionic liquids, promoters, multi-stage transesterification and associated strategies are significant to endorse biodiesel investigations and make their costs viable with other typical energy sources.

Author contributions

W. Nabgan: first author who carried out the writing parts. A. A. Jalil: took care of the bibliometric analysis and paraphrasing. B. Nabgan: took care of the bibliometric analysis and tables. Arvind H. Jadhav: writing and characterization. M. Ikram: corresponding author and english editing. A. Ul-Hamid: took the writing tasks. M. W. Ali: took the writing tasks. N. S. Hassan: helped to draw the figures and english editing.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The principal author, Walid Nabgan, is thankful for the support from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in the form of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship Scheme “Simultaneous heavy metals ions and organic pollutants photoredox reactions over SiO 2 /ZrO 2 based catalysts under solar-light irradiation” (PDRU Grant number: 05E49). In addition, the authors acknowledge the financial support given for this work by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) under the Collaborative Research Grant (CRG) number 07G61, 07G59, and 07G62.

• Borugadda V. B. Goud V. V. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012; 16 :4763–4784. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boro J. Thakur A. J. Deka D. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011; 92 :2061–2067. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.06.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu Y. Du W. Liu D. Zeng J. Biotechnol. Lett. 2003; 25 :1239–1241. doi: 10.1023/A:1025065209983. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mansir N. Taufiq-Yap Y. H. Rashid U. Lokman I. M. Energy Convers. Manage. 2017; 141 :171–182. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.037. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leung D. Y. C. Wu X. Leung M. K. H. Appl. Energy. 2010; 87 :1083–1095. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Idowu I. Pedrola M. O. Wylie S. Teng K. H. Kot P. Phipps D. Shaw A. Renew. Energy. 2019; 142 :535–542. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boonyuen S. Smith S. M. Malaithong M. Prokaew A. Cherdhirunkorn B. Luengnaruemitchai A. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018; 177 :925–929. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ong H. C. Masjuki H. H. Mahlia T. M. I. Silitonga A. S. Chong W. T. Yusaf T. Energy. 2014; 69 :427–445. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thangaraj B. Solomon P. R. Muniyandi B. Ranganathan S. Lin L. Clean Energy. 2019; 3 :2–23. doi: 10.1093/ce/zky020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gohain M. Devi A. Deka D. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017; 109 :8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.08.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jothiramalingam R. Wang M. K. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009; 48 :6162–6172. doi: 10.1021/ie801872t. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borges M. E. Díaz L. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012; 16 :2839–2849. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.071. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramachandran K. Suganya T. Nagendra Gandhi N. Renganathan S. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013; 22 :410–418. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.057. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang P. Liu H. Fan M. Liu Y. Huang J. Curr. Org. Chem. 2016; 20 :752–760. doi: 10.2174/1385272819666150716174013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishak Z. I. Sairi N. A. Alias Y. Aroua M. K. T. Yusoff R. Catal. Rev. 2017; 59 :44–93. doi: 10.1080/01614940.2016.1268021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh A. Kumar G. J. Biochem. Technol. 2018; 9 :17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghedini E. Taghavi S. Menegazzo F. Signoretto M. Sustainability. 2021; 13 :10479. doi: 10.3390/su131810479. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atabani A. E., El-Sheekh M. M., Kumar G. and Shobana S., in Clean Energy for Sustainable Development , ed. M. G. Rasul, A. k. Azad and S. C. Sharma, Academic Press, 2017, 10.1016/b978-0-12-805423-9.00017-x, pp. 507–556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimasaki C., in Biotechnology Entrepreneurship , Academic Press, Boston, 2014, 10.1016/b978-0-12-404730-3.00009-9, pp. 113–138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziolkowska J. R., in Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future , ed. J. Ren, A. Scipioni, A. Manzardo and H. Liang, Elsevier, 2020, 10.1016/b978-0-12-815581-3.00001-4, pp. 1–19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadeghinezhad E. Kazi S. N. Badarudin A. Oon C. S. Zubir M. N. M. Mehrali M. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013; 28 :410–424. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Othman M. F. Adam A. Najafi G. Mamat R. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017; 80 :694–709. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.140. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorda G. Banse M. Kemfert C. Energy Policy. 2010; 38 :6977–6988. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.066. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaurav N. Sivasankari S. Kiran G. S. Ninawe A. Selvin J. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017; 73 :205–214. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.070. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neori A. Chopin T. Troell M. Buschmann A. H. Kraemer G. P. Halling C. Shpigel M. Yarish C. Aquaculture. 2004; 231 :361–391. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.11.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popp J. Kot S. Lakner Z. Oláh J. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues. 2018; 7 :477–493. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer C. Energy J. 2010; 31 :101–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rajagopal D. Hochman G. Zilberman D. Energy Policy. 2011; 39 :228–233. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kegl B. Bioresour. Technol. 2008; 99 :863–873. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bari S. Appl. Energy. 2014; 124 :35–43. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y. Boehman A. L. Energy Fuels. 2007; 21 :2003–2012. doi: 10.1021/ef0700073. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kousoulidou M. Fontaras G. Ntziachristos L. Samaras Z. Fuel. 2010; 89 :3442–3449. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.06.034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anonymous Dyna. 2014; 89 :14–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Su P. H. Geng P. Wei L. J. Hou C. Y. Yin F. Tomy G. T. Li Y. F. Feng D. L. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 2019; 13 :218–227. doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2018.5266. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su P. Hao Y. Qian Z. Zhang W. Chen J. Zhang F. Yin F. Feng D. Chen Y. Li Y. J. Environ. Sci. 2020; 91 :262–270. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2020.01.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Na K. Biswas S. Robertson W. Sahay K. Okamoto R. Mitchell A. Lemieux S. Atmos. Environ. 2015; 107 :307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olatunji I., Wayne S., Gautam M., Clark N., Thompson G., McKain D., Sindler P. and Nuszkowski J., 2010
• Bayındır H. Işık M. Z. Argunhan Z. Yücel H. L. Aydın H. Energy. 2017; 123 :241–251. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishna S. M. Abdul Salam P. Tongroon M. Chollacoop N. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019; 155 :525–533. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.04.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seraç M. R. Aydın S. Sayın C. Energy Sources, Part A. 2020; 42 :2316–2331. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2020.1748144. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Topilin G. Yakovenko A. Uminski S. Nowak J. TEKA Kom. Mot. Energ. Roln.-OL PAN. 2009; 9 :352–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best G., 2006
• Alt N. and im VDMA eV F. L., 2004
• Eskiner M. Bär F. Rossner M. Munack A. Krahl J. Fuel. 2015; 143 :327–333. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.10.080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macor A. Pavanello P. Energy. 2009; 34 :2025–2032. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González-González J. F. Alkassir A. San José J. González J. Gómez-Landero A. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014; 60 :178–188. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazooyar B. Shariati A. Hashemabadi S. H. Energy Fuels. 2015; 29 :6804–6814. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Komariah L. N. Arita S. Novia N. Wirawan S. S. Yazid M. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy. 2013; 5 :052005. doi: 10.1063/1.4822036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mansourpoor M. Shariati A. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2014; 28 :95–103. doi: 10.1021/ef401500z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arkoudeas P. Kalligeros S. Zannikos F. Anastopoulos G. Karonis D. Korres D. Lois E. Energy Convers. Manage. 2003; 44 :1013–1025. doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(02)00112-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korres D. M. Karonis D. Lois E. Linck M. B. Gupta A. K. Fuel. 2008; 87 :70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.04.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delgado W. E. R. Meléndez A. G. R. Betancourt M. A. M. Páez J. A. B. Gómez M. L. Tecciencia. 2019; 14 :53–60. doi: 10.18180/tecciencia.2019.27.3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali O. M. Mamat R. Abdullah N. R. Abdullah A. A. Renew. Energy. 2016; 86 :59–67. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atabani A. E. Silitonga A. S. Badruddin I. A. Mahlia T. M. I. Masjuki H. H. Mekhilef S. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012; 16 :2070–2093. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar N. Goel V. Chauhan S. R. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013; 21 :633–658. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmudul H. M. Hagos F. Y. Mamat R. Adam A. A. Ishak W. F. W. Alenezi R. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017; 72 :497–509. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin L. Cunshan Z. Vittayapadung S. Xiangqian S. Mingdong D. Appl. Energy. 2011; 88 :1020–1031. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.09.029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaurav A. Dumas S. Mai C. T. Q. Ng F. T. T. Green Energy Environ. 2019; 4 :328–341. doi: 10.1016/j.gee.2019.03.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingle A. P. Chandel A. K. Philippini R. Martiniano S. E. da Silva S. S. Symmetry. 2020; 12 :256. doi: 10.3390/sym12020256. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okoro L. N. Belaboh S. V. Edoye N. R. Makama B. Y. Synthesis. 2011; 1 :3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayoola A. Hymore F. Omonhinmin C. A. Olawole O. Fayomi O. Babatunde D. Fagbiele O. Chem. Data Collect. 2019; 22 :100238. doi: 10.1016/j.cdc.2019.100238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karlsson H. Ahlgren S. Sandgren M. Passoth V. Wallberg O. Hansson P.-A. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 2016; 9 :229. doi: 10.1186/s13068-016-0640-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayadi I. Belghith H. Gargouri A. Guerfali M. BioMed Res. Int. 2019; 2019 :3213521. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhatia S. K. Gurav R. Choi T.-R. Han Y. H. Park Y.-L. Park J. Y. Jung H.-R. Yang S.-Y. Song H.-S. Kim S.-H. Bioresour. Technol. 2019; 289 :121704. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121704. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boschen N. L. Valenga M. G. P. Maia G. A. Gallina A. L. Rodrigues P. R. P. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019; 140 :111624. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111624. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saydut A. Duz M. Z. Kaya C. Kafadar A. B. Hamamci C. Bioresour. Technol. 2008; 99 :6656–6660. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.063. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Younis K. A. Gardy J. L. Barzinji K. S. Am. J. Appl. Chem. 2014; 2 :105–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rashid U. Anwar F. Energy Fuels. 2008; 22 :1306–1312. doi: 10.1021/ef700548s. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilkılıç C. Aydın S. Behcet R. Aydin H. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011; 92 :356–362. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.09.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dizge N. Keskinler B. Biomass Bioenergy. 2008; 32 :1274–1278. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D'Cruz A. Kulkarni M. G. Meher L. C. Dalai A. K. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2007; 84 :937–943. doi: 10.1007/s11746-007-1121-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakpong P. Wootthikanokkhan S. Renew. Energy. 2010; 35 :1682–1687. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2009.12.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar D. Kumar G. Singh C. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2010; 17 :555–559. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.10.018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saka S. Kusdiana D. Fuel. 2001; 80 :225–231. doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(00)00083-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Šimáček P. Kubička D. Šebor G. Pospíšil M. Fuel. 2009; 88 :456–460. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2008.10.022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zullaikah S. Lai C.-C. Vali S. R. Ju Y.-H. Bioresour. Technol. 2005; 96 :1889–1896. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.01.028. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinha S. Agarwal A. K. Garg S. Energy Convers. Manage. 2008; 49 :1248–1257. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2007.08.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antolın G. Tinaut F. Briceno Y. Castano V. Perez C. Ramırez A. Bioresour. Technol. 2002; 83 :111–114. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00200-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granados M. L. Poves M. Z. Alonso D. M. Mariscal R. Galisteo F. C. Moreno-Tost R. Santamaría J. Fierro J. Appl. Catal., B. 2007; 73 :317–326. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2006.12.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousuf A. Sannino F. Addorisio V. Pirozzi D. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010; 58 :8630–8635. doi: 10.1021/jf101282t. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanchez F. Vasudevan P. T. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2006; 135 :1–14. doi: 10.1385/ABAB:135:1:1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chand P. Reddy C. V. Verkade J. G. Wang T. Grewell D. Energy Fuels. 2009; 23 :989–992. doi: 10.1021/ef800668u. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinney A. Clemente T. Fuel Process. Technol. 2005; 86 :1137–1147. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2004.11.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Widyan M. I. Al-Shyoukh A. O. Bioresour. Technol. 2002; 85 :253–256. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00135-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crabbe E. Nolasco-Hipolito C. Kobayashi G. Sonomoto K. Ishizaki A. Process Biochem. 2001; 37 :65–71. doi: 10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00178-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaya C. Hamamci C. Baysal A. Akba O. Erdogan S. Saydut A. Renew. Energy. 2009; 34 :1257–1260. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen T. Do L. Sabatini D. A. Fuel. 2010; 89 :2285–2291. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.03.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veljković V. B. Biberdžić M. O. Banković-Ilić I. B. Djalović I. G. Tasić M. B. Nježić Z. B. Stamenković O. S. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018; 91 :531–548. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gülüm M. Bilgin A. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015; 134 :456–464. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.02.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra V. K. Goswami R. Biofuels. 2018; 9 :273–289. doi: 10.1080/17597269.2017.1336350. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demirbas A. Bafail A. Ahmad W. Sheikh M. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2016; 34 :290–318. doi: 10.1177/0144598716630166. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gui M. M. Lee K. T. Bhatia S. Energy. 2008; 33 :1646–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.06.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demirbas A. Biomass Bioenergy. 2009; 33 :113–118. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.04.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar R. Tiwari P. Garg S. Fuel. 2013; 104 :553–560. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.05.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Usta N. Aydoğan B. Çon A. H. Uğuzdoğan E. Özkal S. G. Energy Convers. Manage. 2011; 52 :2031–2039. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.12.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veljković V. B. Lakićević S. H. Stamenković O. S. Todorović Z. B. Lazić M. L. Fuel. 2006; 85 :2671–2675. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.04.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Royon D. Daz M. Ellenrieder G. Locatelli S. Bioresour. Technol. 2007; 98 :648–653. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nabi M. N. Rahman M. M. Akhter M. S. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009; 29 :2265–2270. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.11.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramadhas A. S. Jayaraj S. Muraleedharan C. Fuel. 2005; 84 :335–340. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2004.09.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morshed M. Ferdous K. Khan M. R. Mazumder M. S. I. Islam M. A. Uddin M. T. Fuel. 2011; 90 :2981–2986. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.05.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali M. H. Mashud M. Rubel M. R. Ahmad R. H. Procedia Eng. 2013; 56 :625–630. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karmakar A. Karmakar S. Mukherjee S. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012; 16 :1050–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.10.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rashid U. Anwar F. Moser B. R. Knothe G. Bioresour. Technol. 2008; 99 :8175–8179. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.066. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kafuku G. Mbarawa M. Appl. Energy. 2010; 87 :2561–2565. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.02.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meher L. C. Dharmagadda V. S. S. Naik S. N. Bioresour. Technol. 2006; 97 :1392–1397. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.07.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naik M. Meher L. C. Naik S. N. Das L. M. Biomass Bioenergy. 2008; 32 :354–357. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.10.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demirbas A. and Demirbas M. F., Algae energy: algae as a new source of biodiesel , Springer Science & Business Media, 2010 [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell M. N. Guelph Engineering Journal. 2008; 1 :2–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar Tiwari A. Kumar A. Raheman H. Biomass Bioenergy. 2007; 31 :569–575. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.03.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berchmans H. J. Hirata S. Bioresour. Technol. 2008; 99 :1716–1721. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.051. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta A., 2004
• Sharma Y. C. Singh B. Fuel. 2008; 87 :1740–1742. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghadge S. V. Raheman H. Biomass Bioenergy. 2005; 28 :601–605. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.11.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghadge S. V. Raheman H. Bioresour. Technol. 2006; 97 :379–384. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.03.014. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canoira L. Alcántara R. Jesús García-Martínez M. Carrasco J. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006; 30 :76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandouqa A. Al-Hamamre Z. Renew. Energy. 2019; 130 :831–842. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohd Noor C. W. Noor M. M. Mamat R. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018; 94 :127–142. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva P. M. F. d. Silva E. O. Rêgo M. d. S. C. Castro L. M. d. R. Siqueira-Silva A. I. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. 2019; 29 :425–433. doi: 10.1016/j.bjp.2019.05.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramalingam S. Rajendran S. Ganesan P. Govindasamy M. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018; 81 :775–788. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung K.-H. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2010; 16 :506–509. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2010.03.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin C.-Y. Fan C.-L. Fuel. 2011; 90 :2240–2244. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.02.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollardo A. A. Lee H.-s. Lee D. Kim S. Kim J. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018; 185 :382–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.210. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dikmen Y., Oyman G. and Sepici T., 2004
• Ribeiro A. Carvalho J. Castro J. Araújo J. Vilarinho C. Castro F. Mater. Sci. Forum. 2013; 730–732 :623–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Srinivasan G. R. Jambulingam R. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 11 :157–166. doi: 10.3923/jest.2018.157.166. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S. S. Maneerung T. Tsang D. C. W. Ok Y. S. Wang C.-H. Chem. Eng. J. 2017; 328 :246–273. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.07.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lotero E. Liu Y. Lopez D. E. Suwannakarn K. Bruce D. A. Goodwin J. G. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005; 44 :5353–5363. doi: 10.1021/ie049157g. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canakci M. Van Gerpen J. Trans. ASAE. 2001; 44 :1429. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulkarni M. G. Dalai A. K. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006; 45 :2901–2913. doi: 10.1021/ie0510526. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marmesat S. Rodrigues E. Velasco J. Dobarganes C. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2007; 42 :601–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01284.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montefrio M. J. Xinwen T. Obbard J. P. Appl. Energy. 2010; 87 :3155–3161. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gebremariam S. N. Marchetti J. M. Energy Convers. Manage. 2018; 168 :74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knothe G. Razon L. F. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2017; 58 :36–59. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2016.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y. Dubé M. A. McLean D. D. Kates M. Bioresour. Technol. 2003; 90 :229–240. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00150-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaurav A. Ng F. T. T. Rempel G. L. Green Energy Environ. 2016; 1 :62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.gee.2016.05.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mattson J. Burnete N. V. Depcik C. Moldovanu D. Burnete N. Fuel. 2019; 255 :115753. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115753. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aboelazayem O. Gadalla M. Saha B. Renew. Energy. 2018; 124 :144–154. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.076. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith S. M. Oopathum C. Weeramongkhonlert V. Smith C. B. Chaveanghong S. Ketwong P. Boonyuen S. Bioresour. Technol. 2013; 143 :686–690. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.087. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saydut A., Kafadar A., Aydin F., Erdogan S., Kaya C. and Hamamci C., 2016
• Viriya-empikul N. Krasae P. Puttasawat B. Yoosuk B. Chollacoop N. Faungnawakij K. Bioresour. Technol. 2010; 101 :3765–3767. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.079. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma F. Hanna M. A. Bioresour. Technol. 1999; 70 :1–15. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00025-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polshettiwar V. Luque R. Fihri A. Zhu H. Bouhrara M. Basset J.-M. Chem. Rev. 2011; 111 :3036–3075. doi: 10.1021/cr100230z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korus R. A., Hoffman D. S., Bam N., Peterson C. L. and Drown D. C., 1993
• Bacovsky D., Körbitz W., Mittelbach M. and Wörgetter M., IEA task , 2007, vol. 39 , p. 9 [ Google Scholar ]
• Testa M. L. La Parola V. Venezia A. M. Catal. Today. 2014; 223 :115–121. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2013.09.029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guerreiro L. Castanheiro J. E. Fonseca I. M. Martin-Aranda R. M. Ramos A. M. Vital J. Catal. Today. 2006; 118 :166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2005.12.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melero J. A. Bautista L. F. Morales G. Iglesias J. Briones D. Energy Fuels. 2009; 23 :539–547. doi: 10.1021/ef8005756. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gebremariam S. N. Marchetti J. M. Energy Convers. Manage. 2018; 174 :639–648. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.078. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah K. A. Maheria K. C. Parikh J. K. Energy Sources, Part A. 2016; 38 :1470–1477. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2011.636141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malins K., Kampars V. and Brinks J.
• Chen Y. C. Lin D. Y. Chen B. H. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2017; 79 :31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2017.05.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Han X. X. Yan W. Hung C. T. He Y. F. Wu P. H. Liu L. L. Huang S. J. Liu S. B. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2016; 33 :2063–2072. doi: 10.1007/s11814-016-0060-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Istadi I., Anggoro D. D., Buchori L., Rahmawati D. A. and Intaningrum D., in Basic Researches in the Tropical and Coastal Region Eco Developments , ed. H. Hady, H. Susanto and O. K. Radjasa, 2015, vol. 23 , pp. 385–393 [ Google Scholar ]
• Pereira C. O. Portilho M. F. Henriques C. A. Zotin F. M. Z. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2014; 25 :2409–2416. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narkhede N. Patel A. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013; 52 :13637–13644. doi: 10.1021/ie402230v. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• He Y. F. Han X. X. Chen Q. Zhou L. X. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2013; 36 :1559–1567. doi: 10.1002/ceat.201300204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Z. Shang Z. Y. Wang E. J. Xu J. C. Xu Q. Q. Yin J. Z. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012; 51 :12199–12204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie W. L. Yang D. Bioresour. Technol. 2012; 119 :60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.110. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie W. L. Wang H. Y. Li H. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012; 51 :225–231. doi: 10.1021/ie202262t. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie W. L. Yang D. Bioresour. Technol. 2011; 102 :9818–9822. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.08.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu L. L. Li W. Hu J. L. Li K. X. Yang X. Ma F. Y. Guo Y. N. Yu X. D. Guo Y. H. J. Mater. Chem. 2009; 19 :8571–8579. doi: 10.1039/B910694D. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang C. W. Zhou J. F. Chen W. Wang W. G. Wu Y. X. Zhang J. F. Chi R. A. Ying W. Y. Energy Fuels. 2008; 22 :3479–3483. doi: 10.1021/ef800121c. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoffel W. Chu F. Ahrens E. H. Anal. Chem. 1959; 31 :307–308. doi: 10.1021/ac60146a047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alsalme A. Kozhevnikova E. F. Kozhevnikov I. V. Appl. Catal., A. 2008; 349 :170–176. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2008.07.027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soriano N. U. Venditti R. Argyropoulos D. S. Fuel. 2009; 88 :560–565. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2008.10.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Serio M. Tesser R. Dimiccoli M. Cammarota F. Nastasi M. Santacesaria E. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2005; 239 :111–115. doi: 10.1016/j.molcata.2005.05.041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su F. Guo Y. Green Chem. 2014; 16 :2934–2957. doi: 10.1039/C3GC42333F. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuchardt U. Sercheli R. Vargas R. M. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 1998; 9 :199–210. doi: 10.1590/S0103-50531998000300002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lam M. K. and Lee K. T., in Biofuels , ed. A. Pandey, C. Larroche, S. C. Ricke, C.-G. Dussap and E. Gnansounou, Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2011, 10.1016/b978-0-12-385099-7.00016-4, pp. 353–374 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin P. Hamad B. Sapaly G. Carneiro Rocha M. G. Pries de Oliveira P. G. Gonzalez W. A. Andrade Sales E. Essayem N. Appl. Catal., A. 2007; 330 :69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2007.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasreen S., Nafees M., Qureshi L. A., Asad M. S., Sadiq A. and Ali S. D., Biofuels: State of Development , 2018, pp. 93–119 [ Google Scholar ]
• Idem R. O. Katikaneni S. P. R. Bakhshi N. N. Fuel Process. Technol. 1997; 51 :101–125. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3820(96)01085-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macario A. Giordano G. Onida B. Cocina D. Tagarelli A. Giuffrè A. M. Appl. Catal., A. 2010; 378 :160–168. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2010.02.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meechai T. Kongchamdee S. Mar W. W. Somsook E. J. Oleo Sci. 2018; 67 :355–367. doi: 10.5650/jos.ess17174. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Luna M. D. G. Cuasay J. L. Tolosa N. C. Chung T.-W. Fuel. 2017; 209 :246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Han X. Yan W. Hung C.-T. He Y. Wu P.-H. Liu L.-L. Huang S.-J. Liu S.-B. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2016; 33 :2063–2072. doi: 10.1007/s11814-016-0060-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Istadi I. Mabruro U. Kalimantini B. A. Buchori L. Anggoro D. D. Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. 2016; 11 :34–39. doi: 10.9767/bcrec.11.1.413.34-39. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhandari R. Volli V. Purkait M. K. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015; 3 :906–914. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.04.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li F.-J. Li H.-Q. Wang L.-G. Cao Y. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015; 131 :421–429. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.12.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu H. Zhang J. Wei Q. Zheng J. Zhang J. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013; 109 :13–18. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.09.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ofori-Boateng C. Lee K. T. Chem. Eng. J. 2013; 220 :395–401. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.01.046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J.-X. Chen K.-T. Wen B.-Z. Liao Y.-H. B. Chen C.-C. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2012; 43 :215–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2011.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding Y. Sun H. Duan J. Chen P. Lou H. Zheng X. Catal. Commun. 2011; 12 :606–610. doi: 10.1016/j.catcom.2010.12.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meloni D. Monaci R. Zedde Z. Cutrufello M. G. Fiorilli S. Ferino I. Appl. Catal., B. 2011; 102 :505–514. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2010.12.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X. Piao X. Wang Y. Zhu S. J. Phys. Chem. A. 2010; 114 :3750–3755. doi: 10.1021/jp9039379. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coker A., Iretski A., White M., Hernandez R. and French T., 2010
• Teng G. Gao L. Xiao G. Liu H. Energy Fuels. 2009; 23 :4630–4634. doi: 10.1021/ef9003736. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan C. Bin-Bin Z. Jing L. Guo-Yu Z. Wei-Ping F. Le-Fu Y. Acta Phys.-Chim. Sin. 2008; 24 :1817–1823. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kouzu M. Kasuno T. Tajika M. Sugimoto Y. Yamanaka S. Hidaka J. Fuel. 2008; 87 :2798–2806. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.10.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X. Piao X. Wang Y. Zhu S. He H. Fuel. 2008; 87 :1076–1082. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.05.059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X. Piao X. Wang Y. Zhu S. Energy Fuels. 2008; 22 :1313–1317. doi: 10.1021/ef700518h. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X. He H. Wang Y. Zhu S. Piao X. Fuel. 2008; 87 :216–221. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.04.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kouzu M. Kasuno T. Tajika M. Yamanaka S. Hidaka J. Appl. Catal., A. 2008; 334 :357–365. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2007.10.023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X. He H. Wang Y. Zhu S. Catal. Commun. 2007; 8 :1107–1111. doi: 10.1016/j.catcom.2006.10.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie W. Peng H. Chen L. Appl. Catal., A. 2006; 300 :67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2005.10.048. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiwot T. Chem. Int. 2018; 4 :198–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ullah F. Dong L. Bano A. Peng Q. Huang J. J. Energy Inst. 2016; 89 :282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.joei.2015.01.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Semwal S. Arora A. K. Badoni R. P. Tuli D. K. Bioresour. Technol. 2011; 102 :2151–2161. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.080. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Lima A. L. Ronconi C. M. Mota C. J. A. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2016; 6 :2877–2891. doi: 10.1039/C5CY01989C. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buendia J., Grelier G. and Dauban P., in Advances in Organometallic Chemistry , ed. P. J. Pérez, Academic Press, 2015, vol. 64 , pp. 77–118 [ Google Scholar ]
• Parshall G. and Ittel S., 1992
• Cornils B. and Herrmann W. A., vol. 1 , 245–258.
• Gusevskaya E. V. Quim. Nova. 2003; 26 :242–248. doi: 10.1590/S0100-40422003000200017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Terrasson V. and Guénin E., in Novel Magnetic Nanostructures , ed. N. Domracheva, M. Caporali and E. Rentschler, Elsevier, 2018, 10.1016/b978-0-12-813594-5.00010-2, pp. 333–371 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreira A. B. Lemos Cardoso A. da Silva M. J. ISRN Renewable Energy. 2012; 2012 :142857. doi: 10.5402/2012/142857. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho C.-S. Kim D.-T. Choi H.-J. Kim T.-J. Shim S.-C. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 2002; 23 :539–540. doi: 10.5012/bkcs.2002.23.4.539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonçalves C. E. Laier L. O. Silva M. J. d. Catal. Lett. 2011; 141 :1111–1117. doi: 10.1007/s10562-011-0570-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meneghetti M. R. Meneghetti S. M. P. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2015; 5 :765–771. doi: 10.1039/C4CY01535E. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brito Y. C. Ferreira D. A. C. Fragoso D. M. d. A. Mendes P. R. Oliveira C. M. J. d. Meneghetti M. R. Meneghetti S. M. P. Appl. Catal., A. 2012; 443–444 :202–206. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2012.07.040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deshayes G. Mercier F. A. G. Degée P. Verbruggen I. Biesemans M. Willem R. Dubois P. Chem.–Eur. J. 2003; 9 :4346–4352. doi: 10.1002/chem.200304769. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shyamroy S. Garnaik B. Sivaram S. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2005; 43 :2164–2177. doi: 10.1002/pola.20679. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shiina I. Chem. Rev. 2007; 107 :239–273. doi: 10.1021/cr050045o. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh A. K. Prakash R. Pandey D. RSC Adv. 2012; 2 :10316–10323. doi: 10.1039/C2RA20965A. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Mendonça D. R. da Silva J. P. V. de Almeida R. M. Wolf C. R. Meneghetti M. R. Meneghetti S. M. P. Appl. Catal., A. 2009; 365 :105–109. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2009.06.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu G.-H. Sun Y.-J. Lambla M. Die Makromolekulare Chemie. 1993; 194 :665–675. doi: 10.1002/macp.1993.021940225. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norjannah B. Ong H. C. Masjuki H. H. Juan J. C. Chong W. T. RSC Adv. 2016; 6 :60034–60055. doi: 10.1039/C6RA08062F. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaieda M. Samukawa T. Matsumoto T. Ban K. Kondo A. Shimada Y. Noda H. Nomoto F. Ohtsuka K. Izumoto E. Fukuda H. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 1999; 88 :627–631. doi: 10.1016/S1389-1723(00)87091-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumari V. Shah S. Gupta M. N. Energy Fuels. 2007; 21 :368–372. doi: 10.1021/ef0602168. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meher L. C. Vidya Sagar D. Naik S. N. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2006; 10 :248–268. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2004.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tamalampudi S. Talukder M. R. Hama S. Numata T. Kondo A. Fukuda H. Biochem. Eng. J. 2008; 39 :185–189. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2007.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigues J. Canet A. Rivera I. Osório N. M. Sandoval G. Valero F. Ferreira-Dias S. Bioresour. Technol. 2016; 213 :88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazar G. and Eirich L., 1989
• Radha P. Prabhu K. Jayakumar A. AbilashKarthik S. Ramani K. Process Biochem. 2020; 95 :17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2020.05.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes K. V. Cavalcanti E. D. C. Cipolatti E. P. Aguieiras E. C. G. Pinto M. C. C. Tavares F. A. da Silva P. R. Fernandez-Lafuente R. Arana-Peña S. Pinto J. C. Assunção C. L. B. da Silva J. A. C. Freire D. M. G. Catal. Today. 2021; 362 :122–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2020.03.060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rial R. C. de Freitas O. N. Nazário C. E. D. Viana L. H. Renew. Energy. 2020; 149 :970–979. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.078. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Júnior S. J. H., Ract J. N. R., Gioielli L. A. and Vitolo M., 2019
• Mittelbach M. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1990; 67 :168–170. doi: 10.1007/BF02539619. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y. Xiao B. Chang J. Fu Y. Lv P. Wang X. Energy Convers. Manage. 2009; 50 :668–673. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2008.10.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dizge N. Aydiner C. Imer D. Y. Bayramoglu M. Tanriseven A. Keskinler B. Bioresour. Technol. 2009; 100 :1983–1991. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christopher L. P. Hemanathan K. Zambare V. P. Appl. Energy. 2014; 119 :497–520. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fjerbaek L. Christensen K. V. Norddahl B. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009; 102 :1298–1315. doi: 10.1002/bit.22256. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Serio M. Tesser R. Pengmei L. Santacesaria E. Energy Fuels. 2008; 22 :207–217. doi: 10.1021/ef700250g. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Endalew A. K. Kiros Y. Zanzi R. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011; 35 :3787–3809. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karmee S. K. Chadha A. Bioresour. Technol. 2005; 96 :1425–1429. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.12.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chouhan A. P. S. Sarma A. K. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2011; 15 :4378–4399. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.112. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galadima A. Muraza O. Energy. 2014; 78 :72–83. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vujicic D. Comic D. Zarubica A. Micic R. Boskovic G. Fuel. 2010; 89 :2054–2061. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2009.11.043. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang Z.-E. Lim S. Pang Y.-L. Ong H.-C. Lee K.-T. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018; 92 :235–253. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.056. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vinu V. Binitha N. N. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020; 25 :241–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anusha G. Curr. Trends Biotechnol. Pharm. 2020; 14 :134–140. doi: 10.5530/ctbp.2020.2.13. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hidayat A., Chafidz A. and Sutrisno B., 2020
• Hidayat A., Roziq G. K., Muhammad F., Kurniawan W. and Hinode H., 2020
• Liu G. Yang J. Xu X. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10 :10273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67357-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaos-Hernández D. Reynel-Avila H. Mendoza-Castillo D. Bonilla-Petriciolet A. Bulg. Chem. Commun. 2019; 51 :89–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Puna J. F. Correia M. J. N. Dias A. P. S. Gomes J. Bordado J. React. Kinet., Mech. Catal. 2013; 109 :405–415. doi: 10.1007/s11144-013-0557-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mosaberpanah M. A. Umar S. A. Mater. Today Sustain. 2020; 7–8 :100030. doi: 10.1016/j.mtsust.2019.100030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golakiya G., University of Saskatchewan, 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmad Zawawi M. N. A. Muthusamy K. Abdul Majeed A. P. P. Muazu Musa R. Mokhtar Albshir Budiea A. J. Build. Eng. 2020; 27 :100924. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100924. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang W. Sun K. Liu H. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020; 241 :118119. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118119. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang G. Liu X. Zhou L. Zhang P. Deng D. Jiang H. Adv. Powder Technol. 2020; 31 :279–286. doi: 10.1016/j.apt.2019.10.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarence O.-A., International Development Innovation Network, 2016 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh J. Int. J. N. Innovat. Eng. Technol. 2019; 15 :61–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuruddin F., Shafiq N. and Kamal N. M., 2008
• Armesto L. Bahillo A. Veijonen K. Cabanillas A. Otero J. Biomass Bioenergy. 2002; 23 :171–179. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00046-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonet-Ragel K. López-Pou L. Tutusaus G. Benaiges M. D. Valero F. Biocatal. Biotransform. 2018; 36 :151–158. doi: 10.1080/10242422.2017.1308498. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Della V. P. Kühn I. Hotza D. Mater. Lett. 2002; 57 :818–821. doi: 10.1016/S0167-577X(02)00879-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen K.-T. Wang J.-X. Dai Y.-M. Wang P.-H. Liou C.-Y. Nien C.-W. Wu J.-S. Chen C.-C. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2013; 44 :622–629. doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2013.01.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saengprachum N. and Pengprecha S., 2012
• Bui L. A.-t. Chen C.-t. Hwang C.-l. Wu W.-s. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 2012; 19 :252–258. doi: 10.1007/s12613-012-0547-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pode R. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2016; 53 :1468–1485. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.051. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tufaner G., Çalışkan A., Yener H. B. and Şeref Ş., 2019
• Saputra E. Nugraha M. W. Helwani Z. Olivia M. Wang S. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018; 345 :012019. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1005/1/012019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saengprachum N. Pengprecha S. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2016; 58 :441–450. doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2015.06.037. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen G.-Y. Shan R. Shi J.-F. Yan B.-B. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015; 133 :8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.01.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manique M. C. Faccini C. S. Onorevoli B. Benvenutti E. V. Caramão E. B. Fuel. 2012; 92 :56–61. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.07.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soares A. B. da Silva P. R. N. Stumbo A. M. Freitas J. C. C. Quim. Nova. 2012; 35 :268–273. doi: 10.1590/S0100-40422012000200007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aisyah L., Wibowo C., Bethari S., Ufidian D. and Anggarani R., 2018
• Wei Z. Xu C. Li B. Bioresour. Technol. 2009; 100 :2883–2885. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.039. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma Y. C. Singh B. Korstad J. Energy Fuels. 2010; 24 :3223–3231. doi: 10.1021/ef901514a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hincke M. T. Nys Y. Gautron J. Mann K. Rodriguez-Navarro A. B. McKee M. D. Front. Biosci. 2012; 17 :80. doi: 10.2741/3985. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nys Y. and Gautron J., in Bioactive egg compounds , Springer, 2007, pp. 99–102 [ Google Scholar ]
• Xuan X. Yue C. Li S. Yao Q. Fuel. 2003; 82 :575–579. doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(02)00321-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar R. Kumar S. Mehrotra S. P. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2007; 52 :157–179. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.06.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhuri S. K. Sur B. J. Environ. Eng. 2000; 126 :583–594. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2000)126:7(583). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trinh Q. V., Nagy S. and Mucsi G., presented in part at the MultiScience – XXXIII. microCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference , 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• Pavlović S. M. Marinković D. M. Kostić M. D. Janković-Častvan I. M. Mojović L. V. Stanković M. V. Veljković V. B. Fuel. 2020; 267 :117171. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malonda Shabani J. Babajide O. Oyekola O. Petrik L. Catalysts. 2019; 9 :1052. doi: 10.3390/catal9121052. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aniokete T. Ozonoh M. Daramola M. O. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2019; 9 :1924–1937. [ Google Scholar ]
• He P. Y. Zhang Y. J. Chen H. Han Z. C. Liu L. C. Fuel. 2019; 257 :116041. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Go Y. W. Yeom S. H. Environ. Eng. Res. 2019; 24 :324–330. doi: 10.4491/eer.2018.029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lathiya D. R. Bhatt D. V. Maheria K. C. ChemistrySelect. 2019; 4 :4392–4397. doi: 10.1002/slct.201803916. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helwani Z. Fatra W. Saputra E. Maulana R. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018; 334 :012077. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiang Y. Xiang Y. Wang L. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2017; 11 :1019–1029. doi: 10.1016/j.jtusci.2017.05.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manique M. C. Lacerda L. V. Alves A. K. Bergmann C. P. Fuel. 2017; 190 :268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.11.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Satriadi H., Khaibar A. and Almakhi M. M., 2017
• Hadiyanto H. Lestari S. P. Abdullah A. Widayat W. Sutanto H. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2016; 7 :297–305. doi: 10.1007/s40095-016-0212-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiang Y. Wang L. Jiao Y. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016; 4 :818–824. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.12.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar P. Aslam M. Singh N. Mittal S. Bansal A. Jha M. K. Sarma A. K. RSC Adv. 2015; 5 :9946–9954. doi: 10.1039/C4RA13475C. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho W. W. S. Ng H. K. Gan S. Tan S. H. Energy Convers. Manage. 2014; 88 :1167–1178. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.03.061. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babajide O. Catal. Today. 2013; 201 :210. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.09.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babajide O. Musyoka N. Petrik L. Ameer F. Catal. Today. 2012; 190 :54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.04.044. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Senthil M. Visagavel K. Saravanan C. G. Rajendran K. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016; 149 :7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.03.027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu W. Yang J. Xiao B. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009; 161 :474–478. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.122. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• da Silva Almeida H. Corrêa O. A. Eid J. G. Ribeiro H. J. de Castro D. A. R. Pereira M. S. Pereira L. M. de Andrade Mâncio A. Santos M. C. da Silva Souza J. A. Borges L. E. P. Mendonça N. M. Machado N. T. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 2016; 118 :20–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2015.12.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu Q. Xin R. Li C. Xu C. Yang J. J. Environ. Sci. 2013; 25 :823–829. doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60067-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Senthil M. Visagavel K. Avinash A. Energy Sources, Part A. 2016; 38 :876–881. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2015.1089340. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alkan G. Schier C. Gronen L. Stopj S. Friedrich B. Metals. 2017; 7 :458. doi: 10.3390/met7110458. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoon K. Jung J.-M. Cho D.-W. Tsang D. C. W. Kwon E. E. Song H. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019; 366 :293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang L. Y. Wang Y. Z. Wei G. T. Li Z. Y. Huang H. N. Energy Sources, Part A. 2016; 38 :1713–1720. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2014.964814. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharyya A. Rajanikanth B. S. Energy Procedia. 2015; 75 :2371–2378. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.168. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhoble Y. N. Ahmed S. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 2018; 20 :1373–1382. doi: 10.1007/s10163-018-0711-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Branca T. A. Colla V. Algermissen D. Granbom H. Martini U. Morillon A. Pietruck R. Rosendahl S. Metals. 2020; 10 :345. doi: 10.3390/met10030345. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galadima A. Muraza O. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020; 263 :121358. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121358. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hildor F. Mattisson T. Leion H. Linderholm C. Rydén M. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 2019; 88 :321–331. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.06.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabir G. Mohd Din A. T. Hameed B. H. Bioresour. Technol. 2018; 249 :42–48. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.190. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakti Cahyono R. Rozhan A. N. Yasuda N. Nomura T. Hosokai S. Kashiwaya Y. Akiyama T. Fuel. 2013; 109 :439–444. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.03.070. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zong Y. Zhang X. Mukiza E. Xu X. Li F. Appl. Sci. 2018; 8 :1187. doi: 10.3390/app8071187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou H. Li B. Wei Y. Wang H. Yang Y. McLean A. Can. Metall. Q. 2019; 58 :187–195. doi: 10.1080/00084433.2018.1540088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li B. Wei Y. Wang H. Yang Y. ISIJ Int. 2018; 58 :1168–1174. doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2017-723. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J. Xing S. Huang Y. Fan P. Fu J. Yang G. Yang L. Lv P. Appl. Energy. 2017; 190 :703–712. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma X. Li Y. Shi L. He Z. Wang Z. Appl. Energy. 2016; 168 :85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kashiwaya Y. Toishi K. Kaneki Y. Yamakoshi Y. ISIJ Int. 2007; 47 :1829–1831. doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.47.1829. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siengchum T. Isenberg M. Chuang S. S. C. Fuel. 2013; 105 :559–565. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.09.039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tharwani A. Sablani A. Batra G. Tiwari S. Reel D. Gandhi M. N. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Technol. 2017; 4 :37–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunasekaran K. Annadurai R. Kumar P. S. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012; 28 :208–215. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.072. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaur M. Kaur M. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2012; 7 :05–08. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hidayu A. R. Muda N. Procedia Eng. 2016; 148 :106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.463. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Endut A. Abdullah S. H. Y. S. Hanapi N. H. M. Hamid S. H. A. Lananan F. Kamarudin M. K. A. Umar R. Juahir H. Khatoon H. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017; 124 :250–257. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2017.06.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pradana Y. S., Hidayat A., Prasetya A. and Budiman A., 2018
• Buasri A. Chaiyut N. Loryuenyong V. Rodklum C. Chaikwan T. Kumphan N. Jadee K. Klinklom P. Wittayarounayut W. Sci. Asia. 2012; 38 :283–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vinukumar K. Azhagurajan A. Vettivel S. C. Vedaraman N. Haiter Lenin A. Fuel. 2018; 222 :180–184. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.129. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro R. S. Bessa A. M. M. de Queiroz B. A. Duarte A. M. S. F. de Sant'Ana H. B. de Santiago-Aguiar R. S. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2014; 361 :30–36. doi: 10.1016/j.fluid.2013.10.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shelke A. S. Ninghot K. R. Kunjekar P. P. Gaikwad S. P. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res. 2014:2278–3652. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li H. Niu S. Lu C. Liu M. Huo M. Sci. China: Technol. Sci. 2014; 57 :438–444. doi: 10.1007/s11431-013-5440-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng J. Zhou J. Liu J. Cao X. Cen K. Energy Fuels. 2009; 23 :2506–2516. doi: 10.1021/ef8007568. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li H. Niu S. Lu C. Liu M. Huo M. Energy Convers. Manage. 2014; 86 :1110–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.082. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li H. Niu S.-l. Lu C.-m. Cheng S.-q. Energy Convers. Manage. 2015; 103 :57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2015.06.039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wahyudi A. Kurniawan W. Hinode H. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 2017; 50 :561–567. doi: 10.1252/jcej.16we337. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shan R. Zhao C. Lv P. Yuan H. Yao J. Energy Convers. Manage. 2016; 127 :273–283. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marwaha A. Rosha P. Mohapatra S. K. Mahla S. K. Dhir A. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018; 181 :175–186. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.09.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arsalanfar M. Mirzaei A. A. Bozorgzadeh H. R. Samimi A. Ghobadi R. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2014; 20 :1313–1323. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2013.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohebbi S. Rostamizadeh M. Kahforoushan D. Fuel. 2020; 266 :117063. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alismaeel Z. T. Abbas A. S. Albayati T. M. Doyle A. M. Fuel. 2018; 234 :170–176. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.07.025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thunyaratchatanon C. Luengnaruemitchai A. Jitjamnong J. Chollacoop N. Chen S.-Y. Yoshimura Y. Energy Fuels. 2018; 32 :9744–9755. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b01498. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang L. M., Lv P. M., Yuan Z. H., Luo W., Wang Z. M. and Li H. W., 2011
• Bühler R. M. M. Dutra A. C. Vendruscolo F. Moritz D. E. Ninow J. L. Food Sci. Technol. 2013; 33 :9–13. doi: 10.1590/S0101-20612013000500002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr B. J., Dozier III W. A. and Bregendahl K., 2007
• Yazdani S. S. Gonzalez R. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2007; 18 :213–219. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2007.05.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng J.-H. Leong S. K. Lam S. S. Ani F. N. Chong C. T. Energy Convers. Manage. 2017; 143 :399–409. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bühler W. Dinjus E. Ederer H. J. Kruse A. Mas C. J. Supercrit. Fluids. 2002; 22 :37–53. doi: 10.1016/S0896-8446(01)00105-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ullah Z. Khan A. S. Muhammad N. Ullah R. Alqahtani A. S. Shah S. N. Ghanem O. B. Bustam M. A. Man Z. J. Mol. Liq. 2018; 266 :673–686. doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2018.06.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• No results found

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.4 biodiesel.

Biodiesel is best defined as an alternative fuel which exhibits the same function as the fossil fuels (Fangrui & Hanna, 1998). Biodiesel can be generated directly from vegetable oil, animal oil or fats, plants oil, tallow and waste cooking by transesterification process which changes the organic group R of an ester with the organic group R of an alcohol (Horseman et al., 2008). Based on the previous research, the high potential of oil sources for biodiesel is coming from crops such as rapeseed, palm oil and soybean and recently microalgae has been the most promising among all of them (Mata et al., 2010 & Chisti, 2007).

In United Kingdom, rapeseed has become a big deal for biodiesel production (Marcos & carlos, 2007). Besides, United States produced biodiesel as high as 691 million gallons in 2009, even though the annual production decreased to as low as 490 million gallons in 2010, the amount of overall biodiesel production is considered plentiful (Ethier et al., 2011).

Numerous researches proved that biodiesel has great advantages over fossil fuel (Dragon et al., 2012; Mata et al., 2010 & Chisti, 2007). As a renewable energy source, biodiesel is an environmental friendly energy that releases less greenhouse gas, discharges less carbon dioxide and low content sulphur and carbon monoxide (Fangrui & Hanna, 1998)

Technically speaking, 90% of air toxicity and 95% of cancers can be decreased by biodiesel due to their less pollutants emission (Huang et al., 2010). Furthermore, biodiesel has a great potential in the energy market since the price of fossil fuel will be tremendously skyrocketed imminently and the high energy demand (Alwi, 2014). The renewable microalgae energy will not have an issue with price hike as they can be produced sustainably and the price will be well- balanced by the intense competing of wide markets around the globe.

2.4.1 Biodiesel in Malaysia

Biofuel production in Malaysia is synonymous with palm oil, a major established agricultural product in Malaysia. The average national blend of biodiesel in Malaysia’s transport diesel pool has steadily increased since 2011 by blending the biodiesel from palm oils with the conventional diesel. From 1.3% in 2011, where biofuel was only available in the central region of Negeri Sembilan and Selangor states, it increased to 2.0% in 2012 when biofuel was available in the Southern region of Malacca and Johore states. When the government fully committed to implement B5 program in 2014, it increased to 5%. After many delays, the Government of Malaysia’s (GOM) introduced the B7 mandate in 2015, thus increased the national blend rate to 7%. In 2015, Malaysia exported 65 % of biodiesel to Spain, 19% to the Netherlands and 11% to Switzerland (Wahab, 2016). As far as today Malaysia has not developed the biodiesel based on microalgae feedstock (Huang et al., 2010). The feasibility of microalgae as biodiesel feedstock is still under research and has yet to be implemented.

2.4.2 Microalgae biodiesel

Microalgae biodiesel or algal biodiesel is an alternative source of fuels that uses microalgae as its source of energy-rich oils (Prommuak et al., 2012). Also,

microalgae biodiesel are an alternative to common known biofuel sources, such as corn, sugarcane, soya bean and palm oil. They are several companies and government agencies are funding efforts to cut down capital and operating costs as well as make microalgae fuel production commercially viable (Scott et al., 2010). Like fossil fuel, microalgae biodiesel releases carbon dioxide when burnt, but unlike fossil fuel, microalgae fuel and other biofuels only release carbon dioxide recently removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis as the microalgae or plant grew. Microalgae biodiesel has attractive characteristics that they can be grown with minimal impact on fresh water resources, can be also produced using saline and wastewater, have a high flash point, biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled (Dinh et al., 2009 & Aslan & Kapdan, 2008). Microalgae costs more per unit mass than other crops due to high capital and operating costs but are claimed to yield between 10 and 100 times more fuel per unit area (Mata et al., 2010 & Chisti, 2007)

Lately, researchers are utilizing microalgae to produce biofuels, chemicals, oils, food, medicine and many other (Lang et al., 2001). Although some researches are inclined to use crops such as corn, soybean, repressed and palm oil for biodiesel production and yet some green microalgae are still topping them with possibility of 75 % oil of its dry weight (Metzger & largeau, 2005). Nevertheless, as far as today, biodiesel cannot meet the increased energy demand since their production is too low due to the higher cost of cultivation. However, its biodiesel productivity is much better than crops plants (Chisti, 2007).

More than that, the cultivation area is also an important factor for choosing the best microalgae biodiesel feedstock. Converting microalgae into biodiesel requires area of land that is as low as 1% - 2.5% of the total cropland compared to the other crops that need larger land area for production (Chisti, 2007). What is more, microalgae biodiesel production can be reached as high as 93% from the lipids weight (Prasad et al., 2015 & Li et al., 2007). Thus, considering the satiation of increasing energy demand and cultivation land area needs, the renewable microalgae biodiesel seems to be the most appropriate source of feedstock. Production of microalgae biodiesel is hard to meet economic challenges because the price for harvesting and dewatering are high, and the application for oil extraction is complicated (Pooja & Himabinda, 2014).

2.4.3 Advantages of using microalgae for biodiesel production

According to Sheehan et al., (1998), microalgae can be cultivated easily and can grow using water that is unsuitable for human consumption such as waste water and lastly easy to get nutrients. Alwi, (2014) also concluded that microalgae practically able to grow anywhere including in the dessert and marine environments, thus makes them so flexible and will having no intense competition with another food crops. Furthermore, microalgae can grow almost anywhere just needing sunlight and some simple nutrients and it is possible to accelerate its growth by adding some specific nutrients and with sufficient aeration as stated by Aslan & Kapdan (2008).

Microalgae is effortless for cultivation, it can grow with little of them even no attention, using any water that unsuitable for human consumption which is containing nutrients prerequisite for their growth and microalgae will reproduce themselves through photosynthesis to convert sunlight energy into chemical energy in order for completing an entire growth cycle (Li et al., 2008; Reinhardt et al., 2008 & Sheehan et al., 1998). Furthermore, microalgae are incredibly flexible whereby they can grow to almost everywhere, needing sunlight and with simple nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen compound, however their growth can be accelerated by adding some specific growth driving nutrients and with sufficient aeration (Aslan and Kapdan, 2006 & Pratoomyot et al., 2005).

There are thousands species of microalgae, thus, it has a high possibility to find the right species that suitable for growing with local environment which is not possible for the other crops and producing biodiesel feedstocks such as soybean, rapeseed, sunflower and palm oil. The implementation of mass cultivation of microalgae can be initiated once the most suitable microalgae species containing rich oil are successfully adapted to local environment conditions (Sharma, 2011). Microalgae has higher growth rates and productivity than any other plants or crops pertaining for biodiesel production in which they are requiring less land area, it is up to 49 to 132 time less land are compare to soybean crops (Chisti, 2007). Thus, limitation of arable soil for crops would not going to give much impact towards the cultivation of microalgae which requires less land area compared to the others crops. Microalgae are able to generate feedstock for numbers of renewable fuels such as methane, hydrogen, methane, and many others. More than that, microalgae based biodiesel contain no sulfur but still functioning same as petroleum diesel

which able to reduce emissions of particulate matter such as carbon dioxide, hydrocarbon and sulphur oxides (Pires et al., 2012). The emission of nitrogen dioxide maybe higher depending on engine types (Delluchi, 2003). The biofuel from microalgae also serve other purposes such as having a big potential as an agent of removal CO2 fromindustrial flue gases through microalgae bio-fixation, which able

to in reducing the GHG emissions (Wang et al., 2008).

Furthermore, microalgae can be used for waste water by removing ammonium, nitrate, phosphorus and microalgae also can be grown in the waste water as stated by Wang et al., (2008). After the oil from microalgae is extracted, the resulting microalgae biomass can be processed for production of ethanol, methane, livestock fees, fertilizers because of its high N:P ratio, and can be burned for energy cogeneration either for electricity or heat (Wang et al., 2008). More than that, the other species of microalgae is also viable to be extracted into variety products which including a large range of fine chemicals and bulk products such as fats, natural dyes, oil, sugars, antioxidants, high-value bioactive compounds, polyunsaturated fatty acids (Raja et al., 2008 & Horseman et al., 2008).

Finally, the present of high-value derivatives can potentially make microalgae to be revolutionized into the field of biotechnology including biofuel, pharmaceuticals, cosmetic, nutrition, food additives, and aquaculture (Rosenberg et al., 2008 & Li et al., 2008). There are many ways of producing biofuel with microalgae. The overview of the options available is shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Overview options to covert algal into energy (Iersel & Flammini, 2010).

• Biodiesel (You are here)

Related documents

Western Transportation Institute

Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel: Literature Review

• Status: Completed

On February 12, 2003, the Transportation Committee of the Montana House of Representatives heard testimony on House Bill 502, which proposed that all diesel fuel sold for use in internal combustion engines contain at least 2 percent biodiesel fuel by volume. The bill was discussed but tabled by the committee because of “unanswered questions surrounding this relatively new technology.” Specific concerns included:• “the effects of biodiesel blends on engine performance – specifically fuel economy, torque, and power – as compared to diesel;• cold weather product storage and potential for gelling;• sulfur, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and other emissions; and• potential for engine damage.”The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) was asked by the House Transportation Committee to initiate a research project focusing on the viability of using biodiesel as an alternative fuel in MDT’s vehicle fleet. To undertake this study, MDT implemented this project in two phases: first, a review of relevant literature regarding the performance of biodiesel in motor vehicles; and second, a test application using a B20 blend (20 percent oil seed-based biodiesel, 80 percent conventional diesel) in three MDT vehicles housed in Missoula and three housed in Havre.This document describes Phase 1 of the Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel research project: the literature review.

To provide the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the State Legislature with better information to help them make policy decisions regarding future biodiesel usage in the state. The purpose of the literature review was to examine the body of literature that currently exists regarding laboratory and field experience with the use of biodiesel fuels, with an emphasis on oil seed-based biodiesel.

• Chris Strong ( PI ) Chris Strong ( PI )

REPORTS & DOCUMENTS:

Safety & Operations

Cold Climate & Operations-

Road Ecology

Infrastructure Longevity

Systems Engineering

Mobility & Public Transit

Logistics & Freight

Planning & Economics

Follow WTI:

Subscribe to the WTI Newswire

© 2024 Western Transportation Institute – all rights reserved . PO Box 174250, Bozeman, MT 59717