Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A life-cycle comparison between inorganic and biological catalysis

for the production of biodiesel
K.G. Harding a,*, J.S. Dennis b, H. von Blottnitz a, S.T.L. Harrison a
a

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, South Africa

b
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK

Received 8 February 2007; received in revised form 16 July 2007; accepted 30 July 2007
Available online 27 September 2007

Abstract
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to compare inorganic and biological catalysis for the production of biodiesel by transesterification. The inorganic route, using catalysis by sodium hydroxide, has been compared with a conceptual biological one using enzymatic catalysis
by the lipase produced by Candida antarctica. Although biological catalysis has not been used for industrial production of biodiesel to date,
results from laboratory experiments suggest that it could have distinct advantages over the inorganic route, particularly with regard to a simplified
flowsheet for purification and concomitant energy savings. Five flowsheet options have been included in the study to investigate the alkali and
enzyme catalysed production routes from rapeseed oil, use of methanol or ethanol for transesterification and the effect of efficiency of alcohol
recovery. The LCA shows that the enzymatic production route is environmentally more favourable. Improvements are seen in all impact categories. Global warming, acidification, and photochemical oxidation are reduced by 5%. Certain toxicity levels have more than halved. These
results are mainly due to lower steam requirements for heating in the biological process.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biodiesel; Life cycle assessment (LCA); Biological catalysts; Candida antarctica lipase

1. Introduction
Biodiesel is a generic term for alkyl esters of fatty acids,
produced by esterification of vegetable oils with an alcohol
(usually methanol, but also ethanol). It is blended with diesel
fuel derived from crude oil to reduce the proportion of CO2 attributed to the fossil-fuel when the mixture is burnt. Biodiesel
can also decrease other emissions characteristic of normal diesel fuel, such as particulates and SOx. The advantages of biodiesel combustion over petroleum diesel are well documented
[1e6].
Both virgin and waste vegetable oils can be converted to
form the renewable fuel biodiesel. Industrially, methanol is
used with a homogenous alkali catalyst. Acid catalysts can
also be used to facilitate reaction [7e16]. However, recent
* Corresponding author. Fax: 27 21 650 5501.
E-mail address: kevin.harding@uct.ac.za (K.G. Harding).
0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.07.003

studies, largely still at the laboratory stage, have explored

the use of the enzyme lipase as a biological catalyst
[17e34]. Other methods of preparation have also been proposed. These include using supercritical fluids [35,36], or
zeolites and metal catalysts [37e42]. The latter two process
alternatives are not considered here.
The purpose of this study is to compare the environmental
impacts of various flowsheets which could be proposed for the
production of biodiesel at the industrial scale. These include
the use of alkali or enzyme catalysts, the use of alcohols methanol and ethanol in reaction and varied recovery levels of excess alcohol (Table 1). An LCA based methodology such as
ISO 14040: 2006 is used [43]. It should be borne in mind
that, currently, there are no industrial-scale processes for biodiesel based on enzymatic esterification. An outcome of this
study is to identify the scientific and technical barriers to overcome for a biological route to be competitive with established
inorganic routes.

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

Table 1
Specifications of the different biodiesel production process flowsheets
investigated
Flowsheet

2.2. Alkali catalysed process

As shown in Fig. 1, in the base case (case 1), methanol
(stream 101) enters at a 6:1 molar ratio with respect to the
oil (stream 105) (twice the stoichiometric requirement) allowing the equilibrium to be shifted towards biodiesel production
(Fig. 1). The catalyst (NaOH) is present at a 0.01 mass fraction
with respect to oil. An assumption is made that dehydrogenated vegetable oil with less than 0.5 wt.% free fatty acid, anhydrous alkali catalyst and anhydrous alcohol are used as
water and free fatty acids can lead to soap formation
[44,45]. If waste cooking oils were used, a purification step
is needed before the reactor to ensure a low free fatty acid
and water content.
The oil, catalyst and alcohol are fed (stream 102) into reactor R-101. The reactor is maintained at a temperature of 60  C
and a pressure of 4 bar. After a 2 h residence time, a 95% conversion of oil to biodiesel and a glycerol co-product is assumed.
The reactor products (stream 106) are fed to a methanol recovery unit (distillation column, T-201) where 94% of the methanol is separated by distillation and recycled back to R-101.
Biodiesel from the transesterification reaction (stream 202)
is separated from glycerol by counter current water washing
(T-301). Zhang et al. [15] recommended 11 kg of wash water
per 1050 kg fresh oil feed and the use of a second unspecified
purification unit. The amount of water used was increased to
260 kg to achieve separation in a single step. The majority

Catalyst
Alkali
Lipase
Alkali
Alkali
Lipase
Alcohol used
Methanol Methanol Methanol Ethanol Ethanol
Alcohol recovery (%) 94
e
50
94
e

2. Biodiesel production process

2.1. Introduction
In order to determine the environmental impacts of biodiesel production through life cycle assessment, process flowsheets giving material and energy inputs and outputs are
required. Simulation models for each process option have
been developed using Aspen Plus. Flowsheets were developed for each case, using NaOH for chemical catalysis and
the enzyme lipase from Candida antarctica for biological
catalysis.
The process flowsheets developed are continuous models
converting rapeseed oil (assumed to be pure triacylglycerol
e C57H104O6), via a transesterification reaction, to biodiesel
(Eq. (1)). The alkali catalysed process is based on the approach of Zhang et al. [15], including supportive and alternative conditions described by others (Table 2).

CH2

OOC

R1

CH

OOC

R2

CH2

OOC

R3

Oil

Catalyst

3 R'OH

R1

COO

R'

R2

COO

R'

R3

COO

R'

3 (Alcohol)

1369

3 (Biodiesel)

CH2

OH

CH

OH

CH2

OH

Glycerol

Table 2
Literature process conditions for transesterification of oils (alkali catalysts)
Karaosmanoglu Boocock
et al. [12]
et al. [11]

Vicente et al. Lang et al. [13]

[10,16]

Antolin
et al. [14]

Zhang et al. [15]

Oil used

Rapeseed

Soybean

Sunflower

Sunflower

Alcohol used

Methanol

Methanol

Methanol

Alcohol to oil ratio

Catalyst used

6:1
NaOH

9:1
KOH

6:1
NaOH

6:1
NaOH

Catalyst wt. fraction

Reactor temperature
Reactor pressure
Residence time
Oil conversion

0.016
65  C
1 atm
38e50 min
97.4e99.7%
(50 min)

Methanol,
butanol
6:1e30:1
NaOH or NaOCH3
in THF
0.002e0.01
20e60  C
1 atm
10e15 min
70e95%

Waste cooking oil, Triacylglycerol

triacylglycerol
(rapeseed oil)
Methanol
Methanol, ethanol

0.0028e0.0055
60e70  C
1 atm

0.01
60  C
4 bar

96%

95% (2 h)

0.01
60  C
4 bar
2h
95% (2 h)

Methanol recovery
Wash water (kg/kg oil)
Neutralising acid
THF e tetrahydrofuran.

6:1
NaOH
0.013
20e65  C
1 atm
8h
100%

Rapeseed, linseed,
sunflower
Methanol, ethanol,
2-propanol, 1-butanol
6:1
KOH, sodium
methoxide
0.01e0.02
25e110  C
1 atm
40 mine3 h
98% (1 h)

94%

w100%
Includes tannic
acid or brine

Includes H3PO4 0.01

H3PO4

This study

94%
50%
0.26
HCl

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

1370

401C

401B

201

ALCOHOL
CATALYST

103

401A

102

101 101A

401
T-301

106

105A

105
T-201

202

402

T-401

402B
H2O

WATER

BIODIESEL

301

H2OA

R-101

OIL

METHANOL (WASTE)

402A

OIL (WASTE)

501C
302

501B

501

WATER (WASTE)

ACID

ACID

304

305

R-201
T-501

GLYCEROL

502
X-302

306

SALT

Fig. 1. Biodiesel process flowsheet to be used in LCA e alkali catalyst. R-101: transesterification reactor; T-201: distillation column (methanol recovery); T-301:
counter current water washing; T-401: distillation column (biodiesel purification); R-201: alkali neutralisation; T-501: distillation column (water removal from
glycerol/salt); X-302: crystalliser (salt removal from glycerol).

of the glycerol and sodium hydroxide is taken out with the water stream (302), while the unreacted oil and biodiesel product
remain in stream 301.
Sodium hydroxide in stream 302 is neutralised in a second
reactor (R-201). Zhang et al. [15] suggest phosphoric acid. As
the thermodynamics of the resulting salt were unknown,
hydrochloric acid (HCl) was chosen to replace it. Acid enters
(acid stream) stoichiometrically so that all the alkali is treated.
The products from the reactor (stream 304) were further purified in distillation column T-501 to remove water (stream 501)
which is split and recycled or discarded. The salt is removed
by a crystalliser (X-302), leaving 105 kg of 85% purity
glycerol (stream 305).

The biodiesel and unconverted oil from the water washing

unit (T-301) proceed to distillation column T-401 (stream 301)
for separation. Oil is removed in the bottoms and recycled to
reactor R-101 via stream 402B. A liquid/vapour mixture is obtained from the distillate of column containing 99.6 wt.% liquid biodiesel product (stream 401) and a vapour methanol
(68%) stream (401A) which is split and recycled to reactor
R-101 or discarded.
2.3. Biologically catalysed process
Using the flowsheet model for biodiesel production with an
alkali catalyst outlined above, relevant changes were made to

401C

401B

METHANOL (WASTE)

401A
401
ALCOHOL

T-301

102

101

R-101
OIL

WATER

301

106

105A
105

BIODIESEL

H2OA

402A

402

T-401

402B

OIL (WASTE)

501C

H2O
302

501

501B

WATER (WASTE)

T-501
502

GLYCEROL

Fig. 2. Biodiesel process flowsheet to be used in LCA e biological catalyst. R-101: transesterification reactor; T-301: counter current water washing; T-401: distillation column (biodiesel purification); T-501: distillation column (water removal from glycerol/salt).

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

1371

Table 3
Process conditions for biodiesel production used to compare alkali catalysed and biocatalysed biodiesel production
Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Catalyst used

Triacylglycerol
(rapeseed oil)
NaOH

Triacylglycerol
(rapeseed oil)
NaOH

Triacylglycerol
(rapeseed oil)
NaOH

Catalyst fraction
Alcohol used
Alcohol to oil ratio
Alcohol recovery
Oil conversion
Reactor temperature
Reactor pressure
Residence time

0.01 (molar)
Methanol
6:1
94%
95%
60  C
4 bar
1.5 h

Triacylglycerol
(rapeseed oil)
Immobilized enzyme
from Candida antarctica
0.04 (mass)
Methanol
3:1
(None required)
90%
25  C
1 bar
16 h

0.01 (molar)
Methanol
6:1
50%
95%
60  C
4 bar

0.01 (molar)
Ethanol
6:1
94%
95%
60  C
4 bar
1.5 h

Triacylglycerol
(rapeseed oil)
Immobilized enzyme
from Candida antarctica
0.04 (mass)
Ethanol
3:1
(None required)
90%
25  C
1 bar
16 h

Oil used

accommodate an enzyme catalyst (case 2). Where possible,

features were kept unchanged to facilitate comparison through
life cycle analysis. Lipase from C. antarctica (immobilized on
polyacrylate polymer beads as supplied by Novo Nordisk e
Novozym 435) was used as the enzyme catalyst.
As with the alkali catalysis scenario, enzyme catalysis consists of a continuous reactor feeding methanol (stream 101) and
oil (stream 105) to reactor R-101 (Fig. 2). The enzyme loading
is kept at 4 wt.% (biomass and support) as recommended by
Shimada et al. [22]. Methanol is fed such that the concentration
is kept low. A concentration higher than half the stoichiometric
amount will denature the catalyst [21,22]. Reaction is maintained at 25  C and 1 bar with a residence time of 20 h.
Since 90% of the methanol reacts (no excess was added),
there is little need for methanol recovery by distillation; hence
unit T-201 is omitted. Also, since no alkali is present in the
system, there is no need for neutralisation by acid and reactor
R-201 and crystalliser X-302 are omitted.

2.4. Additional process flowsheets

Further process alternatives in this study include modification of the original alkali catalysed process (case 1) to allow
for a lower methanol recovery in T-201 (case 3). The alkali
catalysed (case 1) and biologically catalysed (case 2) processes have also been modeled using ethanol instead of methanol (cases 4 and 5, respectively) (Table 3). The mass and
energy balances obtained (Table 4) are then used for the life
cycle assessment (LCA) study.
3. Production alternatives

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Even though conversion rates are generally slower in the

enzyme catalysed route, interest in the process is justified by
the resultant simplifications and lower reaction temperatures.
Advances in the technology have also resulted in a decrease
in catalyst price which had been a previous concern [46].
The lipase catalyst does not impose restrictions on the water
content or level of free fatty acids in the oil, and is able to
yield similar conversions to the alkali catalysed option. There
is a high ester yield and no saponification reaction occurs [4].
Chemical catalysts need to be neutralised before glycerol can
be removed, forming a salt by-product that contaminates the
glycerol product. In contrast, the immobilized lipase remains

Products
Biodiesel (kg)
Glycerol (kg)

1000
106

1000
106

1000
106

1000
101

1000
101

Table 5
LCIA of biodiesel production (case 1) e CML 2 Baseline 2000 v2.1

Feed
Rapeseed oil (kg)
Methanol (kg)
Ethanol (kg)
NaOH (kg)
HCl (kg)
Steam (kg)
Electricity (kWh)
Water (process) (kg)
Water (cooling) (tons)

991
112
e
10.4
37.9
1820
8.6
29.8
117

991
111
e
e
e
1540
34.1
56.4
97.4

991
146
e
10.4
37.9
2060
12.4
28.8
132

947
e
149.82
10.0
36.2
1820
9.9
30.6
114

947
e
0.23
e
e
1490
35.4
55.9
92.6

Waste
Salt (kg)
Methanol (kg)
Ethanol (kg)
Water (kg)

15.2
2.9
e
57.5

e
2.4
e
50.9

15.2
36.1
e
57.8

14.5
e
0
57.4

e
e
0.23
51.0

Table 4
Mass and energy values obtained from flowsheets for each case to be used in
life cycle analysis

Impact category

Unit

Characterisation

Normalisation

Abiotic depletion
Global warming
(GWP100)
Ozone layer
depletion (ODP)
Human toxicity
Fresh water
aquatic ecotoxicity
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
Acidification
Eutrophication

kg Sbeq
kg CO2

16.0
4150

9.98E14
8.97E14

kg CFC-11eq

0.000827

7.24E16

kg 1,4-DBeq
kg 1,4-DBeq

145
14.1

2.41E15
6.82E15

kg 1,4-DBeq
kg 1,4-DBeq
kg C2H2
kg SO2 eq
kg PO3
4 eq

277,000
2.71
1.45
30.2
37.6

3.66E13
1.03E14
1.35E14
9.65E14
2.85E13

eq

Values are for 1000 kg of biodiesel product.

1372

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

in the reactor and does not contaminate reaction products;

hence glycerol recovery and purification may be simplified.
Methanol is the most commonly used alcohol in the reaction because of its short chain length and low cost. Its use is
a possible cause of environmental concern since it requires
crude oil in production, both for energy and as a raw material.
Ethanol is renewable and has suggested advantages due to being environmentally based and carbon dioxide neutral [47],
making it the most promising alternative. In this study, ethanol
is produced from sugar and includes the uptake of CO2 during
sugarcane growth. In alkali catalysed biodiesel production, alcohol is added in excess to favour the transesterification reaction. Alcohol recovery is required to minimise alcohol waste.
A high recovery requires a higher energy input for distillation.
The relative advantage of minimizing the energy requirement
through lowering the recovery requires assessment (comparison of cases 1 and case 3). In the enzyme catalysed route, alcohol recovery is eliminated completely since a high alcohol
concentration can inactivate the enzyme. Stepwise, stoichiometric addition is required [21,22,26e28,48].
Fig. 3. Process contributions of biodiesel production (case 1) e single score
EPS 2000 v2.1.

4. Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Comparison of the different routes of biodiesel production
was done with the LCA software package SimaPro v6 (PRe

Fig. 4. LCA results e chemical vs. biological catalysts (biodiesel production by alkali catalysis assuming 94% methanol recovery (case 1) is compared to production using lipase as a biocatalyst (case 2)).

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

Consultants B.V.), using the CML 2 Baseline 2000 v2.1 assessment method. The system was defined as cradle-to-gate
production of 1000 kg of biodiesel, equivalent to a fuel with
a calorific value of 27.1 GJ, or 33.3 MJ/l [49]. The LCA included all raw materials, agricultural inputs and biodiesel processing required for the final biodiesel product. The impacts of
process plant and equipment construction were not included
in the LCA results. The production includes the useful byproduct glycerol which, due to process design and stoichiometry, is of equal purity and in equal proportion to biodiesel in
each process. Because of varying costs of glycerol as a function of purity and its stoichiometric yield, burden allocation
has been based on mass ratios of useful end product. The
results do not include impacts of the biological catalyst since
the immobilized enzyme is re-used resulting in a very low requirement of environmentally benign protein, hence expectations are that such an impact would be low.
5. Results

1373

37.6 kg PO3
4 eq. are emitted. Using the world data set from
the CML method, normalized results show large impacts in
marine aquatic toxicity and, due to rapeseed farming impacts,
eutrophication. Abiotic depletion, global warming and acidification also show significant impacts (Table 5).
The major contributing process in the biodiesel production
is the farming process, including fertilizer production. Further
contributors include the energy requirements from natural gas,
diesel and heat oil, as well as the impacts associated with
steam production. Impacts from methanol production are
also highly rated in the single score of the EPS 2000 impact
assessment method (Fig. 3).
Because of the high energy contribution, milder process
conditions are expected to improve LCA results as investigated in case 2. Reducing methanol recovery should also reduce the energy needs (case 3). To further improve LCA
results, changing the alcohol used to ethanol allows comparison with methanol from both the original alkali and enzyme
processes (cases 1 and 2 for methanol and cases 4 and 5 for
ethanol).

5.1. Alkali catalyst and methanol (case 1)

5.2. Chemical vs. biological catalysts
Using the CML 2 Baseline 2000 v2.1 method, for 1000 kg
of biodiesel produced by alkali catalysis in the presence of
methanol (case 1), 4150 kg carbon dioxide equivalent is released into the atmosphere, while 30.2 kg SO2eq. and

When comparing biodiesel production (CML 2 Baseline

2000 v2.1 method) using inorganic and biological catalysts
with methanol as the transesterification alcohol (cases 1 and

Fig. 5. LCA results e reduced methanol recovery (biodiesel production by alkali catalysis assuming 94% methanol recovery (case 1) is compared to production
assuming 50% methanol recovery (case 3)).

1374

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

2), all LCA impacts were lower for the enzyme catalysed process. Fresh water aquatic toxicity was reduced by approximately 12%, while marine aquatic toxicity and human
toxicity were also reduced by almost 10%. Terrestrial ecotoxicity was reduced by over 40% (mainly due to the removal of
hydrochloric acid from the biologically catalysed process).
Ozone layer depletion was reduced by 6%, abiotic depletion
and acidification by 4%. Reductions in other categories are below 5%, but favour biological catalysts in every case (Fig. 4).
5.3. Reduced methanol recovery
When methanol recovery in the alkali catalysed process
was lowered from 94 to 50% (case 1 vs. 3), impacts increased
in all categories. In order to maintain an equal amount of biodiesel product, flow rates in the product recovery section increase when methanol recovery decreases. This results in
greater pumping requirements and higher loads in distillation
columns. Reducing recovery also increases waste methanol released and the methanol feed.
Reducing methanol recovery to 50% increased all recorded
toxicity levels by at least 20%. Abiotic depletion increased by
12%, ozone layer depletion by 8% and global warming, photochemical oxidation and acidification by 5%. The increase in
eutrophication is not significant since it is attributed to the
farming component (Fig. 5).

5.4. Alternative alcohol (methanol vs. ethanol)

When methanol is replaced with ethanol (produced biologically from sugarcane) (case 1 vs. 4 (Fig. 6), case 2 vs. 5
(Fig. 7)), LCA results are mixed. Human and fresh water
aquatic toxicity and acidification were higher with ethanol
than when using methanol. The changes from methanol use
to ethanol use are quantitatively similar in the alkali catalysed
and enzymatic routes (Fig. 7). There is a large reduction in
abiotic depletion (12.5%) and ozone layer depletion
(27.3%), while improvements in photochemical oxidation
(2%) and eutrophication (1.3%) are not significant. Despite
what was expected, the reduction in greenhouse gases
(1.4%) is not large when replacing methanol with ethanol,
even with the biologically derived ethanol taking up CO2 during agricultural processes. There is a mixed result for toxicity
with an improvement in marine aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity only. Terrestrial ecotoxicity improves to such an extent in
case 5 (biological catalyst and ethanol) that it shows a positive
impact. Negative effects of ethanol use are seen in human toxicity and fresh water aquatic toxicity. This is partly due to the
sugar based-ethanol LCA module used in this study [50]
which has an unusually high coal demand compared to other
models. If directly discharged into water, stillage from sugar
(which is not taken into account here) will further increase
the fresh water aquatic toxicity levels.

Fig. 6. LCA results e alternative alcohol (methanol vs. ethanol) using alkali catalysis (biodiesel production by alkali catalysis assuming 94% methanol recovery
(case 1) is compared to production using ethanol at 94% recovery (case 4)).

Fig. 7. LCA results e alternative alcohol (methanol vs. ethanol) using lipase biocatalysis (biodiesel production by lipase biocatalysis using methanol (case 2) is
compared to production by lipase biocatalysis and ethanol (case 5)).

Fig. 8. LCA results for all flowsheeting options (CML 2 Baseline 2000 v2.1 method).

1376

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

Fig. 9. Process contributions for all flowsheeting options e single score EPS 2000 v2.1.

6. Conclusions
Enzyme catalysed biodiesel production has environmental
advantages due to avoided use of chemical catalyst and neutralising acid. The lower pressures and temperatures obtained

help to give more favourable LCA results and all environmental impacts considered are reduced (Fig. 8).
The major contributing processes to LCA impacts are similar in all five processes. Agricultural processes, steam production, natural gas and diesel are all rated highly on the EPS

Table 6
LCIA of biodiesel production e CML 2 Baseline 2000 v2.1
Impact category

Unit

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Abiotic depletion
Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer
depletion (ODP)
Human Toxicity
Fresh water
aquatic ecotoxicity
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
Acidification
Eutrophication

kg Sbeq
kg CO2 eq
kg CFC-11eq

16.0
4150
0.000827

15.4
4050
0.000777

18.0
4370
0.000895

14.0
4090
0.000601

13.4
3990
0.000555

kg 1,4-DBeq
kg 1,4-DBeq

145
14.1

134
12.4

184
17.3

162
42.1

153
40.6

kg 1,4-DBeq
kg 1,4-DBeq
kg C2H2
kg SO2 eq
kg PO3
4 eq

277,000
2.71
1.45
30.2
37.6

252,000
1.72
1.43
29.3
37.5

352,000
3.58
1.52
31.7
37.7

169,000
0.669
1.42
31.4
37.1

147,000
0.302
1.40
30.5
37.1

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

2000 v2.1 single score method. The methanol production impact is higher than the ethanol production impact and plays
a large role in the overall LCA results in these scenarios (cases
1, 2 and 3 and cases 4 and 5, respectively) (Fig. 9).
In the alkali catalysed process, lower alcohol recovery requires greater flows to give similar product yield and purity.
This increases energy needs as well as pollutants and causes
a less favourable production route when analysed using life
cycle assessment.
Using ethanol instead of methanol in biodiesel production
gives mixed LCA results (Table 6). In both alkali and enzyme
catalysed routes, similar changes are observed when ethanol is
used. Advantages or disadvantages are caused by the alcohol
itself and do not interfere with other variables in the flowsheet
e which remain the same.
References
[1] Sheehan J, Camobreco V, Duffield J, Graboski M, Shapouri H. Life cycle
inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel for use in an urban bus.
Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture and United States
Department of Energy (USDA AND U.S. DOE); 1998.
[2] Ma F, Hanna MA. Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour Technol
1999;70:1e15.
[3] Srivastava A, Prasad R. Triglyceride based diesel fuels. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2000;4:111e33.
[4] Fukuda H, Kondo A, Noda H. Review: biodiesel fuel production by
transesterification of oils. J Biosci Bioeng 2001;92(5):405e16.
[5] Dorado MP, Ballesteros E, Arnal JM, Gomez J, Lopez FJ. Exhaust emissions from a diesel engine fueled with transesterified waste olive oil. Fuel
2003;82:1311e5.
[6] Knothe G, Matheaus AC, Ryan III TW. Cetane numbers of branched and
straight-chain fatty esters determined in an ignition quality tester. Fuel
2003;82:971e5.
[7] Junek H, Mittelbach M, Andreae F. German patent 3,727,981; 1998.
[8] Enchelmaier H, Rasenhorn HJ. German patent, 4,328,195; 1994.
[9] Germani MM. German patent, 4,324,875; 1994.
[10] Vicente G, Coteron A, Martinez M, Aracil J. Application of the factorial
design of experiments and response surface methodology to optimize biodiesel production. Ind Crops Prod 1998;8:29e35.
[11] Boocock DGB, Konar SK, Mao V, Sidi H. Fast one-phase oil-rich process
for the preparation of vegetable oil methyl esters. Biomass Bioenerg
1996;11(1):43e50.
[12] Karaosmanoglu F, Cigizoglu KB, Tuter M, Ertekin S. Investigation of the
refining step of biodiesel production. Energy Fuel 1996;10:890e5.
[13] Lang X, Dalai AK, Bakhshi NN, Reaney MJ, Hertz PB. Preparation and
characterization of bio-diesels from various bio-oils. Bioresour Technol
2001;80:53e62.
[14] Antoln G, Tinaut FV, Brice~no Y, Casta~no V, Perez C, Ramrez AI. Optimisation of biodiesel production by sunflower oil transesterification.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83:111e4.
[15] Zhang Y, Dube MA, McLean DD, Kates M. Review paper: biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: 1. Process design and technological assessment. Bioresour Technol 2003;89:1e16.
[16] Vicente G, Martnez M, Aracil J. Integrated biodiesel production: a comparison of different homogenous catalyst systems. Bioresour Technol
2004;92:297e305.
[17] Mittelbach M. Lipase catalyzed alcoholysis of sunflower oil. J Am Oil
Chem Soc 1999;67:168e70.
[18] Shaw J-F, Wang D-L, Wang YJ. Lipase-catalysed ethanolysis and isopropanolysis of triglycerides with long-chain fatty acids. Enzym Microb
Technol 1991;13:544e6.
[19] Nelson LA, Foglia TA, Marmer WN. Lipase-catalyzed production of biodiesel. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1996;73:1191e5.

1377

[20] Kaieda M, Samukawa T, Matsumoto T, Ban K, Kondo A, Shimade Y,

et al. Biodiesel fuel production from plant oil catalyzed by Rhizopus oryzae lipase in a water-containing system without an organic solvent. J
Biosci Bioeng 1999;88:627e31.
[21] Shimada Y, Watanabe Y, Samukawa T, Sugihara A, Noda H, Fukuda H,
et al. Conversion of vegetable oil to biodiesel using immobilized Candida antarctica lipase. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1999;76:789e93.
[22] Shimada Y, Watanabe Y, Sugihara A, Tominaga Y. Review: enzymatic
alcoholysis for biodiesel fuel production and application of the reaction
to oil processing. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 2002;17:133e42.
[23] Uosukainen E, Lamsa M, Linko Y-Y, Linko P, Leisola M. Optimization of enzymatic transesterification of rapeseed oil ester using response surface and principal component methodology. Enzyme Microb Technol 1999;25:236e43.
[24] Abigor RD, Uaudia PO, Foglia TA, Hass MJ, Jones KC, Okoefa E, et al.
Lipase-catalysed production of biodiesel fuel from some Nigerian lauric
oils. Biochem Soc Trans 2000;28:979e81.
[25] Samukawa T, Kaieda M, Matsumoto T, Ban K, Kondo A, Shimada Y,
et al. Pretreatment of immobilized Candida antarctica lipase for biodiesel production from plant oil. J Biosci Bioeng 2000;90(2):180e3.
[26] Watanabe Y, Shimada Y, Sugihara A, Noda H, Fukuda H, Tominaga Y.
Continuous production of biodiesel fuel from vegetable oil using immobilized Candida antarctica lipase. J Am Oil Chem Soc 2000;77(4):355e60.
[27] Watanabe Y, Shimada Y, Sugihara A, Tominaga Y. Enzymatic conversion
of waste edible oil to biodiesel fuel in a fixed-bed bioreactor. J Am Oil
Chem Soc 2001;78(7):703e7.
[28] Watanabe Y, Shimada Y, Sugihara A, Tominaga Y. Conversion of degummed soybean oil to biodiesel fuel with immobilized Candida antarctica lipase. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 2002;17:151e5.
[29] Iso M, Chen B, Eguchi M, Kudo T, Shrestha S. Production of biodiesel
fuel from triglycerides and alcohol using immobilized lipase. J Mol Catal
B Enzym 2001;16:53e8.
[30] Belafi-Bako K, Kovacs F, Gubicza L, Hancsok J. Enzymatic biodiesel
production from sunflower oil by Candida antarctica lipase in a
solvent-free system. Biocatal Biotransfor 2002;20:437e9.
[31] Kose O, Tuter M, Aksoy HA. Immobilized Candida antarctica lipasecatalyzed alcoholysis of cotton seed oil in a solvent free medium. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:125e9.
[32] Al-Zuhair S. Production of biodiesel by lipase-catalyzed transesterification
of vegetable oils: a kinetics study. Biotechnol Prog 2005;21:1442e8.
[33] Nouredini H, Gao X, Philkana RS. Immobilized Pseudomonas cepacia
lipase for biodiesel fuel production from soybean oil. Bioresour Technol
2005;96:769e77.
[34] Salis A, Pinna M, Monduzzi M, Solinas V. Biodiesel production from triolein
and short chain alcohols through biocatalysis. J Biotechnol 2005;119:291e9.
[35] Kusdiana D, Saka S. Kinetics of transesterification in rapeseed oil to biodiesel fuel as treated in supercritical methanol. Fuel 2001;80:693e8.
[36] Saka S, Kusdiana D. Biodiesel fuel from rapeseed oil as prepared in supercritical methanol. Fuel 2001;80:225e31.
[37] Peterson GR, Scarrah WP. Rapeseed oil transesterification by heterogeneous catalysis. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1984;61(10):1593e7.
[38] Bayenes CR, Hinnekens H, Martens J. Esterification process, United
States Patent 5,508,457; 1996.
[39] Corma A, Iborra S, Miquel S, Primo J. Catalysts for the production of
fine chemicals: production of food emulsifiers, monoglycerides, by glycerolysis of fats with solid base catalysts. J Catal 1998;173:315e21.
[40] Leclercq E, Finiels A, Moreau C. Transesterification of rapeseed oil in
the presence of basic zeolites and related solid catalysts. J Am Oil
Chem Soc 2001;78(11):1161e5.
[41] Suppes GJ, Bockwinkel K, Lucas S, Botts JB, Mason MH, Heppert JA.
Calcium carbonate catalyzed alcoholysis of fats and oils. J Am Oil Chem
Soc 2001;78(2):139e45.
[42] Suppes GJ, Dasari MA, Doskocil EJ, Mankidy PJ, Goff MJ. Transesterification of soybean oil with zeolite and metal catalysts. Appl Catal A
Gen 2004;257:213e23.
[43] ISO 14040. Environmental management e life cycle assessment e principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
[44] Basu HN, Norris ME. Process for production of esters for use as a diesel
fuel substitute using a non-alkaline catalyst, US Patent 5525126; 1996.

1378

K.G. Harding et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2007) 1368e1378

[45] Liu KS. Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters for gas chromatographic
analysis of lipids in biological materials. J Am Oil Chem Soc
1994;71(11):1179e87.
[46] Tan T, Nie K, Wang F. Production of biodiesel by enzymatic conversion.
Proceedings of renewable resources and biorefineries, Ghent, Belgium,
19e21 September 2005.
[47] Demibras
x A. Biodiesel fuels from vegetable oils via catalytic and noncatalytic supercritical alcohol transesterifications and other methods:
a survey. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44(13):2093e109.

[48] Soumanou MM, Bornscheuer UT. Improvement in lipase catalyzed synthesis of fatty acid methyl esters from sunflower oil. Enzym Microb
Technol 2003;33:97e103.
[49] Beer T, Grant T, Williams D, Watson H. Fuel-cell greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuels in Australian heavy vehicles. Atmos Environ
2002;36:753e63.
[50] Theka E. A life-cycle assessment of ethanol produced from sugarcane
molasses, MSc dissertation, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town; 2002.