Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative life cycle assessment of byproducts from sugarcane industry in Pakistan based on biorefinery concept

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A comparative life cycle assessment of the sugarcane biorefinery in different conceptual arrangements was conducted considering four different alternatives with increasing utilization of byproducts. The first alternative with the least use of byproducts was taken as the base case and the fourth alternative was a completely integrated plant with gradually enhanced and efficient use of byproducts. The functional unit was defined as the production of 1 t of sugar in the biorefinery complex. The calculations were performed for the eight most relevant impact categories including global warming, freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, human carcinogenic toxicity, mineral resource scarcity, and fossil resource scarcity. Overall, it was observed that for most of the impact categories, the values were progressively reduced with an increased use of byproducts (i.e., prevention of cane burning and its recovery; filter cake, ash, wastewater, and sludge as fertilizer; bagasse and cane trash for high-pressure cogeneration; ethanol as biofuel and recovery of CO2; biogas for waste to energy production). In general, it could be concluded that an enhanced and efficient use of byproducts would significantly improve the environmental performance of the biorefinery complex.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Safdar MT (2015) Sugarcane and Punjab, Pakistan: production, processing and challenges, Pakistan. Retrieved from https://ethicalsugar.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/ethical-sugar-sugarcane-in-punjab-pakistan.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  2. PSMA (2016) Pakistan sugar mills association annual report 2016. Islamabad. Retrieved from http://www.psmacentre.com/documents/annual-report-2016.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  3. Ministry of Finance Government of Pakistan (2016) Chapter 2 agriculture. In: Pakistan economic survey 2015-16. Islamabad, pp 23–41. Retrieved from http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_16/02_Agriculture.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  4. PSMA (2017) Pakistan sugar mills association annual report 2017. Islamabad. Retrieved from http://www.psmacentre.com/documents/Annual%20Report%202017.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2018

  5. Sy CL, Ubando AT, Aviso KB, Tan RR (2018) Multi-objective target oriented robust optimization for the design of an integrated biorefinery. J Clean Prod 70:496–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Santos F, Machado G, Faria D et al (2016) Productive potential and quality of rice husk and straw for biorefineries. Biomass Conv Bioref 7:117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pal S, Joy S, Kumbhar P, Trimukhe KD, Gupta R, Kuhad RC, Varma AJ, Padmanabhan S (2017) Pilot-scale pretreatments of sugarcane bagasse with steam explosion and mineral acid, organic acid, and mixed acids: synergies, enzymatic hydrolysis efficiencies, and structure-morphology correlations. Biomass Conv Bioref 7:179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Contreras AM, Rosa E, Perez M, Langenhove VH, Dewulf J (2009) Comparative life cycle assessment of four alternatives for using by-products of cane sugar production. J Clean Prod 17:772–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beaudry G, Macklin Roknich CE, Sears L, Wiener M, Gheewala SH (2018) Greenhouse gas assessment of palm oil mill biorefinery in Thailand from a life cycle perspective. Biomass Conv Bioref 8:43–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pongpat P, Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T (2017) An assessment of harvesting practices of sugarcane in the central region of Thailand. J Clean Prod 142:1138–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiatkittipong W, Wongsuchoto P, Pavasant P (2009) Life cycle assessment of bagasse waste management options. Waste Manag 29:1628–1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. dos Santos MFN, Battistelle RAG, Bezerra BS, Varum HSA (2014) Comparative study of the life cycle assessment of particleboards made of residues from sugarcane bagasse (Saccharum spp.) and pine wood shavings (Pinus elliottii). J Clean Prod 64:345–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Sagisaka M (2009) Greenhouse gas savings potential of sugar cane bio-energy systems. J Clean Prod 86:132–139

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH (2008) Fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand: environmental and cost performance. Energ Policy 36:1589–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsiropoulos I, Faaij APC, Seabra JEA, Lundquist L, Schenker U, Briois JF, Patel MK (2014) Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India in comparison to Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1049–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gnansounou E, Vaskan P, Pachón ER (2015) Comparative techno-economic assessment and LCA of selected integrated sugarcane-based biorefineries. Bioresour Technol 196:364–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Silalertruksa T, Pongpat P, Gheewala SH (2017) Life cycle assessment for enhancing environmental sustainability of sugarcane biorefinery in Thailand. J Clean Prod 140:906–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ullah S (2013) Project report: generic sustainability framework for industrial estates of Pakistan. Lahore. Retrieved from http://www.pisd.org.pk/SustainabilityFramework.aspx. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  19. International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040:2006 environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework, Geneva

  20. International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14044:2006 environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines, Geneva

  21. Ali RZ (2011) Advanced sugarcane production technology. Faisalabad. Retrieved from http://www.psst.org.pk/Agriworkshop14/03-ADVANCE%20SUGARCANE%20PRODUCTION%20TECHNOLOGY-RanaZulfiqar%20Ali.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2017

  22. Sajjad A, Ahmad F, Makhdoom AH, Imran A (2012) Does trash burning harm arthropod biodiversity in sugarcane. Int J Agric Biol 14:1021–1023

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mir KA, Ijaz M (2016) Greenhouse gas emission inventory of Pakistan for the year 2011–2012. Islamabad. Retrieved from http://www.gcisc.org.pk/GHGINVENTORY2011-2012_FINAL_GCISCRR19.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2017

  24. FAO (1996) Theoretical outlook. In: Framework analysis and background documentation

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer J, Rein P, Turner P, Mathias K (2011) Good management practices manual for the cane sugar industry (final). PGBI Sugar & Bio-Energy (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hugot E (1986) Handbook of cane sugar engineering. Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  27. Patil SG, Gokhale DV, Patil BG (1986) Enhancement in ethanol production from cane molasses by skim milk supplementation. Enzym Microb Technol 8:481–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Xu Y, Isom L, Hanna MA (2010) Adding value to carbon dioxide from ethanol fermentations. Bioresour Technol 101:3311–3319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. FAO (2011) Irrigation in southern and eastern Asia in figures. Rome

  30. Bureau of Statistics Government of the Punjab (2015) Punjab development statistics. Lahore. Retrieved from http://bos.gop.pk/system/files/Dev-2015.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2017

  31. Rein P (2007) Cane sugar engineering. Verlag Dr. Albert Bartens KG, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  32. Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR (2008) Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenerg 32:582–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Filho RBDA, Danielski L, Carvalho FRD, Stragevitch L (2012) Recovery of carbon dioxide from sugarcane fermentation broth in the ethanol industry. Food Bioprod Process 91:287–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Leal MRLV, Walter AS, Seabra JEA (2013) Sugarcane as an energy source. Biomass Conv Bioref 3:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yasar A, Ali A, Tabinda AB, Tahir A (2015) Waste to energy analysis of shakarganj sugar mills; biogas production from the spent wash for electricity generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 43:126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. NEPRA (2013) Determination of the authority in the matter of upfront tariff for new bagasse based co-generation power projects. Islamabad. Retrieved from http://www.nepra.org.pk/Tariff/Upfront/TRF-UTB%20Upfront%20Baggase%2029-05-2013%205152-54.PDF. Accessed 22 December 2017

  37. SPSSKL (2006) Cane trash as an alternate fuel resource for biomass cogeneration plant. Solapur, India. Retrieved from https://biomasspower.gov.in/document/flipbook/case-study/Cane%20trash%20as%20alternate%20cheap%20fuel%20revised%20ready%20for%20upload.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2018

  38. Grisso RD, Kocher MF, Vaughan DH (2014) Predicting tractor diesel fuel consumption. Retrieved from https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/442/442-073/442-073_pdf.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  39. Yuttitham M, Gheewala SH, Chidthaisong A (2011) Carbon footprint of sugar produced from sugarcane in eastern Thailand. J Clean Prod 19:2119–2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Government of Pakistan (1997) Pakistan environmental legislation and the national environmental quality standards. Ministry of Environment, Local Government, and Rural Development, Islamabad.

  41. IPCC (2006) In: Doorn MRJ, Towprayoon S, Vieira SMM et al (ed) Chapter 6 wastewater treatment and discharge. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

  42. IPCC (2006) In: Aalde H, Gonzalez P, Gytarsky M et al (ed) Chapter 2 generic methodologies applicable to multiple land-use categories. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

  43. Wang M, Wu H, Huo H, Liu J (2008) Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emission implications of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol simulation with the GREET model. Int Sugar J 110:527–545

    Google Scholar 

  44. IPCC (2006) In: Gomez DR, Watterson JD, Americano BB et al (ed) Chapter 2 stationary combustion. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

  45. European Environment Agency (2016) Energy industries, EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2016/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-a-combustion/1-a-1-energy-industries/view. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  46. IPCC (2006) In: Klein CD, Novoa RSA, Ogle S et al (ed) Chapter 11 N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

  47. Nemecek T, Kagi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich

  48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Emission factor documentation for AP 42 section 1.8 bagasse combustion in sugar mills. North Carolina. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s08.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  49. Nielsen M, Illerup JB (2006) Danish emission inventories for stationary combustion plants. National Environmental Research Institute, Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen

  50. Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF et al (2016) ReCiPe2016: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level report I: characterisation. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Sugarcane Research and Development Board, Punjab and Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute, Jhang, Pakistan are acknowledged for the help in data collection.

Funding

The authors received financial support from the Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, and Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, Bangkok, Thailand.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Prachauthit Rd., Bangmod, Tungkru, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand

    Hafiz Usman Ghani & Shabbir H. Gheewala

  2. Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, Bangkok, Thailand

    Hafiz Usman Ghani & Shabbir H. Gheewala

Authors
  1. Hafiz Usman Ghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shabbir H. Gheewala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shabbir H. Gheewala.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghani, H.U., Gheewala, S.H. Comparative life cycle assessment of byproducts from sugarcane industry in Pakistan based on biorefinery concept. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 8, 979–990 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-018-0345-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-018-0345-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation