Abstract
Nowadays, a large part of daily activities is associated with the use of fossil fuels. Therefore, the excessive exploitation and related pollution have led to the search for alternatives. A current alternative to replace them is production of biofuels. They are produced in facilities called biorefineries which are ecodesigned. The ecodesign in biorefineries is a multicriteria issue encountering various criteria. In this context, the aim of this study is the assessment of various biorefinery ecodesign alternatives for the selection of the optimal pathway to produce biodiesel as an alternative to fossil fuels. A multicriteria decision-making methodological framework is proposed and applied to two case studies with three scenarios each. Decision support techniques show that the best ecodesign alternative for the first case study is a biorefinery of four platforms to produce biodiesel, glycerin, potassium phosphate, heat and energy, bio-oil, and bio-carbon from jatropha biomass, while in case two the selection is not conclusive which is attributable to subjectivity. This framework addresses the issue presented by biorefineries looking for sustainability but also for other industries looking for application on their process design. Incorporating sustainable considerations into biorefinery process design as well as assessing them through different criteria to choose the optimal configuration is the main issue faced by decision makers and stakeholders.
Graphic abstract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adesanya VO, Cadena E, Scott SA, Smith AG (2014) Life cycle assessment on microalgal biodiesel production using a hybrid cultivation system. Bioresour Technol 163:343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.04.051
Akbarian-Saravi N, Mobini M, Rabbani M (2020) Development of a comprehensive decision support tool for strategic and tactical planning of a sustainable bioethanol supply chain: real case study, discussions and policy implications. J Clean Prod 244:118871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118871
Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) MAUT method. New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 127–131
Ammenberg J, Feiz R (2017) Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part II—Results for strategic decision making. Resour Conserv Recycl 122:388–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.020
Benali M, Jeaidi J, Mansoornejad B et al (2018) Decision support systems for assessment of biorefinery transformation strategies. Can J Chem Eng 96:2155–2175. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.23301
Brans J-P, Mareschal B (2005) Promethee methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 163–186
Brunnhofer M, Gabriella N, Schöggl J-P et al (2020) The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry—a three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis. For Policy Econ 110:101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.02.006
Celebi AD, Ensinas AV, Sharma S, Maréchal F (2017) Early-stage decision making approach for the selection of optimally integrated biorefinery processes. Energy 137:908–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.080
Cuevas-castillo GA, Navarro-pineda FS, Rodríguez SAB, Rivero JCS (2020) Advances on the processing of microalgal biomass for energy-driven biorefineries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 125:109606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109606
de Souza LM, Mendes PAS, Aranda DAG (2020) Oleaginous feedstocks for hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) biojet production in southeastern Brazil: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Renew Energy 149:1339–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.125
Dodd FJ, Donegan HA, McMaster TBM (1993) A statistical approach to consistency in AHP. Math Comput Model 18:19–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90123-G
Dos Santos PH, Neves SM, Sant’Anna DO et al (2018) The Analytic Hierarchy Process supporting decision making for sustainable development: an overview of applications. J Clean Prod 212:119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270
Dragone G, Kerssemakers AAJ, Driessen JLSP et al (2020) Innovation and strategic orientations for the development of advanced biorefineries. Bioresour Technol 302:122847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122847
Feiz R, Ammenberg J (2017) Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I—A multi-criteria approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 122:373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019
Friedman B, Kahn PH, Borning A, Huldtgren A (2013) Value sensitive design and information systems. Early engagement and new technologies: opening up the laboratory. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 55–95
Gnansounou E, Alves CM, Pachón ER, Vaskan P (2017) Comparative assessment of selected sugarcane biorefinery-centered systems in Brazil: a multi-criteria method based on sustainability indicators. Bioresour Technol 243:600–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.004
Goepel KD (2019) Comparison of judgment scales of the analytical hierarchy process—a new approach. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 18:445–463. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622019500044
Ikram M, Sroufe R, Zhang Q (2020) Prioritizing and overcoming barriers to integrated management system (IMS) implementation using AHP and G-TOPSIS. J Clean Prod 254:120121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120121
Jeong JS, Ramírez-Gómez Á (2018) Optimizing the location of a biomass plant with a fuzzy-DEcision-MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (F-DEMATEL) and multi-criteria spatial decision assessment for renewable energy management and long-term sustainability. J Clean Prod 182:509–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.072
Lee C, Lee J, Choi Y, Lee K (2014) Application of the integrated ecodesign method using the GHG emission as a single indicator and its GHG recyclability. J Clean Prod 112:1692–1699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.081
Ley-borrás R (2015) Deciding on the decision situation to analyze: the critical first step of a decision analysis. Decis Anal 12:46–58. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2014.0308
Lin R, Man Y, Lee CKM et al (2020) Sustainability prioritization framework of biorefinery: a novel multi-criteria decision-making model under uncertainty based on an improved interval goal programming method. J Clean Prod 251:119729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119729
Lousteau-Cazalet C, Barakat A, Belaud J-P et al (2016) A decision support system for eco-efficient biorefinery process comparison using a semantic approach. Comput Electron Agric 127:351–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.06.020
Majumder M (2015) Impact of urbanization on water shortage in face of climatic aberrations. Multi criteria decision making. Springer, Singapore, pp 35–47
Maronese S, Ensinas AV, Mian A et al (2015) Optimum biorefinery pathways selection using the integer-cuts constraint method applied to a MILP problem. Ind Eng Chem Res 54:7038–7046. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01439
Martinkus N, Rijkhoff SAM, Hoard SA et al (2017) Biorefinery site selection using a stepwise biogeophysical and social analysis approach. Biomass Bioenerg 97:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.12.022
Martinkus N, Latta G, Rijkhoff SAM et al (2019) A multi-criteria decision support tool for biorefinery siting: using economic, environmental, and social metrics for a refined siting analysis. Biomass Bioenerg 128:105330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105330
Mastrocinque E, Ramírez FJ, Honrubia-Escribano A, Pham DT (2020) An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector. Expert Syst Appl 150:113321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113321
Mat Aron NS, Khoo KS, Chew KW et al (2020) Sustainability of the four generations of biofuels—a review. Int J Energy Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5557
Merz J, Bandaru V, Hart Q et al (2018) Hybrid poplar based biorefinery siting web application (HP-BiSWA): an online decision support application for siting hybrid poplar based biorefineries. Comput Electron Agric 155:76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.09.042
Moncada J, Cardona CA, Rincón LE (2015) Design and analysis of a second and third generation biorefinery: the case of Castorbean and Microalgae. Bioresour Technol 198:836–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.077
Moncadam J, Aristizábal V, Cardona A (2016) Design strategies for sustainable biorefineries. Biochem Eng J 116:122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2016.06.009
Morales-Mendoza LF, Azzaro-Pantel C, Belaud J-P, Ouattara A (2018) Coupling life cycle assessment with process simulation for ecodesign of chemical processes. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 37:777–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12723
Navarro-Pineda FS, Handler R, Sacramento Rivero JC (2019) Conceptual design of a dedicated-crop biorefinery for Jatropha curcas using a systematic sustainability evaluation. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 13:86–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1940
Nieder-Heitmann M, Haigh KF, Görgens JF (2019) Life cycle assessment and multi-criteria analysis of sugarcane biorefinery scenarios: finding a sustainable solution for the South African sugar industry. J Clean Prod 239:118039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118039
Palmeros Parada M, Asveld L, Osseweijer P, Posada JA (2020) Integrating value considerations in the decision making for the design of biorefineries. Sci Eng Ethics 26:2927–2955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00251-z
Parada MP, Osseweijer P, Duque JAP (2016) Sustainable biorefineries, an analysis of practices for incorporating sustainability in biorefinery design. Ind Crop Prod 106:105–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.08.052
Pérez ATE, Camargo M, Rincón PCN, Marchant MA (2017) Key challenges and requirements for sustainable and industrialized biorefinery supply chain design and management: a bibliographic analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.084
Ram J (2020) Applications in decision-making: analytic hierarchy process—AHP revisited. In: Pairwise comparisons method—teory and applications in decision making. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Switzerland, p 231
Ren L, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Sun Z (2007) Comparative analysis of a novel M-TOPSIS method and topsis. Appl Math Res eXpress 2007:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/amrx/abm005
Sacramento-Rivero JC (2012) A methodology for evaluating the sustainability of biorefineries: framework and indicators. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 6:32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb
Sanaei S, Chambost V, Stuart PR (2018) Systematic assessment of triticale-based biorefinery strategies: sustainability assessment using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 12:S73–S86. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1482
Santhanamahalingam A, Maragathasundari S, Bathrinath S (2019) F-DEMATEL method to evaluate criteria for affecting productivity in HP valve manufacturing industries. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on intelligent techniques in control, optimization and signal processing (INCOS). IEEE, pp 1–6
Solangi YA, Tan Q, Mirjat NH et al (2019) An integrated Delphi-AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection of renewable energy resources in Pakistan. Processes 7:118. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7020118
Tariq MI, Tayyaba S, Ali Mian N et al (2020) Combination of AHP and TOPSIS methods for the ranking of information security controls to overcome its obstructions under fuzzy environment. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 38:6075–6088. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179692
Wang Y-M, Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2005) A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets Syst 152:475–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2004.10.020
Wang Y, Xu L, Ahmed Y (2020) Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustain Cities Soc 52:101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861
Wei G, Wang HJ, Lin R, Zhao X (2011) Grey relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making with preference information on alternatives. Int J Comput Intell Syst 4:164–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2011.9727773
Wheeler J, Páez MA, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Mele FD (2018) Combining multi-attribute decision-making methods with multi-objective optimization in the design of biomass supply chains. Comput Chem Eng 113:11–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.02.010
Yu X, Zhang S, Liao X, Qi X (2018) ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Inf Sci (NY) 424:301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061
Acknowledgements
This work is a product of a research project funded by Mexican Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) Award Number 250014 “Clúster Biodiesel Avanzado”.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
González-Cruz, L.A., Morales-Mendoza, L.F., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A. et al. Optimal ecodesign selection for biodiesel production in biorefineries through multicriteria decision making. Clean Techn Environ Policy 23, 2337–2356 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02141-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02141-9