Life cycle environmental impacts of non-cellulosic fermentable carbohydrates for the production of biofuels and chemicals

  • Edgardo Ortiz-ReyesEmail author
  • Robert P. Anex



Fermentable carbohydrates (FC) are raw materials from agriculture common in the production of bio-based products like biofuels and renewable chemicals. The production of these raw materials contribute significantly to the total environmental life cycle impacts of these bio-based products. No study has yet assessed and compared the non-cellulosic FC sources in the USA.


To this aim, the environmental life cycle assessment method was used to compare FC derived from conventional agricultural feedstocks. The study compared four agricultural feedstocks from the USA and one additional feedstock that was used as a reference. The feedstocks from the USA were energycane (a.k.a energy cane), sweet sorghum, maize (a.k.a., corn), and sugar beet. This study used Brazilian sugarcane (BSC) as a reference of low environmental impacts. The environmental impacts assessed were greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel use, and eutrophication potential. The environmental assessment included a Monte Carlo simulation to assess the uncertainty of the results. A sensitivity analysis was also executed by using the method of changing one variable at a time to identify the most influential input variables.

Results and discussion

The assessment showed that FC from energycane has low overall environmental impacts relative to the other US feedstocks evaluated and it resulted in environmental effects similar to those of the BSC. This life cycle assessment shows that US sugar beet has a different impact profile compared to the other feedstocks evaluated; having low eutrophication impact and high in both GHG emissions and fossil fuel use impacts. FC from sweet sorghum has low GHG emissions and fossil fuel use relative to maize (also known as corn) and sugar beet; however, the uncertainty associated with these impacts is greater than that of energycane, sugarcane, and maize.


The assessment shows there are fermentable carbohydrates sources in the USA with lower environmental impacts than the maize feedstock, currently dominant in the USA, and the impacts of the best performing of these are comparable to BSC.


Biofuels Energy Eutrophication impact Fermentable carbohydrates Greenhouse gasses Life cycle assessment Renewable chemicals 


Funding information

This research is part of a regional collaborative project supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-69005-30515 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1708_MOESM1_ESM.docx (183 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 183 kb)


  1. Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Boyer EW, Nolan JV, Brakebill JW (2008) Differences in phosphorus and nitrogen delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River basin. Environ Sci Technol 42(3):822–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Sugar Cane League (2016). The Louisiana Sugar Industry. Thibodaux, LA: American Sugar Cane League​Google Scholar
  3. Anex R, Lifset R (2009) Assessing corn ethanol. J Ind Ecol 13(4):479–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aragon D, Suhr M, Kochergin V (2013) Evaluation of energy cane and sweet sorghum as feedstocks for conversion into fuels and chemicals. Sugar Ind-Zuckerind 138(10):651–655Google Scholar
  5. Asadi M (2006) Beet-sugar handbook. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audubon Sugar Institute. (2004). Audubon Sugar Institute Annual Report 2003-2004. Retrieved from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center website:
  7. Barber A, Pellow G, Pereira MDA (2008) The Sustainability of Brazilian Sugarcane Bioethanol: A Literature Review. Auckland, New Zealand: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA)Google Scholar
  8. Cao P, Lu CC, Yu Z (2018) Historical nitrogen fertilizer use in agricultural ecosystems of the contiguous United States during 1850–2015: application rate, timing, and fertilizer types. Earth System Sci Data Discuss 10:969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chauhan MK, Varun Chaudhary S, Kumar S, Samar (2011) Life cycle assessment of sugar industry: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(7):3445–3453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(4):216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crago CL, Khanna M, Barton J, Giuliani E, Amaral W (2010) Competitiveness of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol compared to US corn ethanol. Energy Policy 38(11):7404–7415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson CJ, Hilton J (2011) Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 36(Suppl 1):S14–S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day RH (1965) Probability distributions of field crop yields. J Farm Econ 47(3):713–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oliveira de Souza Dias M, Maciel Filho R, Mantelatto PE, Cavalett O, CEV R, Bonomi A, Leal MRLV (2015) Sugarcane processing for ethanol and sugar in Brazil. Environ 15:35–51Google Scholar
  16. Dickerson T, Soria J (2013) Catalytic fast pyrolysis: a review. Energies 6(1):514–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donner SD, Kucharik CJ (2008) Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(11):4513–4518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ecoinvent Centre (2016) Ecoinvent database (Version 3.3). Retrieved from SimaPro Software version 8.3. Accessed May 12, 2017Google Scholar
  19. Eggleston HS, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Chikyū Kankyō Senryaku Kenkyū Kikan (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Retrieved from 8 June 2019
  20. Eggleston G, Cole M, Andrzejewski B (2013) New commercially viable processing technologies for the production of sugar feedstocks from sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) for manufacture of biofuels and bioproducts. Sugar Tech 15(3):232–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engström R, Nilsson M, Finnveden G (2008) Which environmental problems get policy attention? Examining energy and agricultural sector policies in Sweden. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(4–5):241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferreira DA, Franco HCJ, Otto R, Vitti AC, Fortes C, Faroni CE, Trivelin PCO (2016) Contribution of N from green harvest residues for sugarcane nutrition in Brazil. GCB Bioenergy 8(5):859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Field CB, Barros VR, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, van Aalst M, Adger WN et al (2014) Technical summary. In Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp 35–94. Camb Univ Press. Retrieved from 6 February 2017
  24. Foteinis S, Kouloumpis V, Tsoutsos T (2011) Life cycle analysis for bioethanol production from sugar beet crops in Greece. Energy Policy 39(9):4834–4841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldemberg J (2008) The Brazilian biofuels industry. Biotechnol Biofuels 1:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gonzales D, Searcy EM, Ekşioğlu SD (2013) Cost analysis for high-volume and long-haul transportation of densified biomass feedstock. Transp Res 49:48–61Google Scholar
  27. Haankuku C, Epplin FM, Kakani VG (2015) Industrial sugar beets to biofuel: field to fuel production system and cost estimates. Biomass Bioenergy 80:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haas CN (1999) On modeling correlated random variables in risk assessment. Risk Anal 19(6):1205–1214Google Scholar
  29. Hall CAS, Balogh S, Murphy DJR (2009) What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must have? Energies 2(1):25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hermann L, Kraus F, Hermann R (2018) Phosphorus processing—potentials for higher efficiency. Sustainability 10(5):1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hugot E (1986) Handbook of cane sugar engineering. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Jegatheesan V, Shu L, Keir G, Phong DD (2012) Evaluating membrane technology for clarification of sugarcane juice. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 11(2):109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson DL (2008) The corn wet milling and corn dry milling industry—a base for biorefinery technology developments. In: Kamm B, Gruber PR, Kamm M (eds) Biorefineries—industrial processes and products: status quo and future directions. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones SB, Meyer PA, Snowden-Swan LJ, Padmaperuma AB, Tan E, Dutta A, Cafferty K (2013) Process design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbon fuels: fast pyrolysis and hydrotreating bio-oil pathway. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), RichlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Kadam KL, McMillan JD (2003) Availability of corn stover as a sustainable feedstock for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol 88(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein-Marcuschamer D, Blanch HW (2015) Renewable fuels from biomass: technical hurdles and economic assessment of biological routes. AICHE J 61(9):2689–2701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leboreiro J, Hilaly AK (2011) Biomass transportation model and optimum plant size for the production of ethanol. Bioresour Technol 102(3):2712–2723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lynd LR (2017) The grand challenge of cellulosic biofuels. Nat Biotechnol 35(10):912–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynd LR, Liang X, Biddy MJ, Allee A, Cai H, Foust TS, Wyman CE (2017) Cellulosic ethanol: status and innovation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 45:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva J (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 Bioenergy 32(7):582–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maung TA, Gustafson CR (2011) The economic feasibility of sugar beet biofuel production in central North Dakota. Biomass Bioenergy 35(9):3737–3747Google Scholar
  42. Ortiz-Reyes E, Anex RP (2018) A life cycle impact assessment method for freshwater eutrophication due to the transport of phosphorus from agricultural production. J Clean Prod 177:474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patel, M., Zhang, X., & Kumar, A. (2016). Techno-economic and life cycle assessment lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: Areview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 1486–1499.
  44. Protection of Environment, 40 C.F.R. § Part 409—Sugar Processing Point Source Category (2011)Google Scholar
  45. Rausch KD, Raskin LM, Belyea RL, Agbisit RM, Daugherty BJ, Clevenger TE, Tumbleson ME (2005) Phosphorus concentrations and flow in maize wet-milling streams. Cereal Chem 82(4):431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reisig RC, Mannapperuma JD (2002) US6387186 B1. Retrieved from 12 January 2017
  47. Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Nielsen LK (2008) An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 32(12):1144–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roy P, Dias G (2017) Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bioenergy sector: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. RStudio Team (2015) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc, Boston Retrieved from URL 21 October 2018
  50. Salassi ME, Holzapfel A, Hilbun BM, Deliberto MA, Gravois KA, Viator HP, Mark TB (2017) Feedstock crop production costs and biofuel feedstock input costs associated with the production of energy cane and sweet sorghum in the southeastern USA. BioEnergy Res 10(3):772–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sims AL, Windels CE, Bradley CA (2010) Content and potential availability of selected nutrients in field-applied sugar beet factory lime. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 41(4):438–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith JH, Hayden CW (1980) Treatment and disposal of sugarbeet processing waste water by irrigation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, 55 ppGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith VH, Tilman GD, Nekola JC (1999) Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ Pollut 100(1–3):179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soileau JM, Bradford BN (1985) Biomass and sugar yield response of sweet sorghum to lime and fertilizer. Agron J 77(3):471–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Takkellapati S, Li T, Gonzalez MA (2018) An overview of biorefinery-derived platform chemicals from a cellulose and hemicellulose biorefinery. Clean Techn Environ Policy 20(7):1615–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner RE, Rabalais NN, Justic D (2008) Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: alternate states and a legacy. Environ Sci Technol 42(7):2323–2327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. US EPA (1977) Clean water and the cane sugar industry. Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.govAccessed 20 October 2019
  58. US EPA (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: Volume III. Part A: process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. US EPA (2010) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Writers’ Manual. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division, State and Regional BranchGoogle Scholar
  60. Usva K, Saarinen M, Katajajuuri J-M, Kurppa S (2009) Supply chain integrated LCA approach environmental impacts of food production to assess in Finland. Agric Food Sci 18(3–4):460–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vadas PA, Good LW, Moore PA, Widman N (2009) Estimating phosphorus loss in runoff from manure and fertilizer for a phosphorus loss quantification tool. J Environ Qual 38(4):1645–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vink ETH, Rábago KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks™ polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab 80(3):403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang L (2014) Sustainable bioenergy production. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang M (2017) GREET® model. The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation model. GREET 1 series (fuel-cycle model). Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved from https://Greet.Es.Anl.Gov/Greet_1_seriesAccessed 29 June 2019

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations