Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability
analysis
Jennifer B Dunn1,2
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a key tool in the evaluation of biofuel
and bioproduct sustainability. Recent advances in these
analyses include increased incorporation of spatially explicit
elements of feedstock growth including changes in soil carbon
and fertilization rates. Furthermore, new evaluations of
processes to convert biomass to fuels (ethanol, algal-derived
fuels, jet fuels, and others) and products have been conducted
that examine emerging conversion technologies. Co-product
allocation among co-produced biofuels and bioproducts
continues to raise LCA methodological challenges; approaches
to allocation can drive LCA results. Given the variations in
feedstocks, spatially explicit factors, conversion process
design, and LCA methodological choices (e.g. co-product
allocation), transparency in reporting biofuel LCA methodology
and results is critical to enable cross-comparison of studies.
Addresses
1
Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University,
United States
2
Northwestern-Argonne Institute of Science and Engineering, 1-160
Hogan Building, Evanston, IL, United States
Corresponding author:
Dunn, Jennifer B (Jennifer.dunn1@northwestern.edu)
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93
This review comes from a themed issue on Energy biotechnology
Edited by Cynthia H Collins and Danielle Tullman-Ercek
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 29th March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.02.008
0958-1669/ã 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction
Worldwide, policies promote biofuels including the
United States’ Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the
European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, and
blending mandates in China [1] and Brazil [2]. Further-
more, interest is growing in producing more chemicals
and materials from biomass. Although shifting toward a
bioeconomy promises increased sustainability [3], analy-
sis can help verify that this is indeed the case. The most
common form of sustainability analysis applied to biofuels
and bioproducts is life cycle analysis (LCA) [4], a system-
atic accounting of the material and energy inputs and
outputs over each stage in the life cycle of these entities
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93
that culminates in quantification of life-cycle energy and
environmental impacts. Biofuel and bioproduct LCA
often focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions given
regulatory and certification standard requirements, but
water consumption [5], air pollutant emissions [6], and
other factors are also considered. In carrying out these
LCAs, analysts must contend with several methodological
issues including co-product allocation, the handling of
spatially-specific factors particularly in feedstock growth,
and treatment of the fate of biogenic carbon. After an
introduction to overarching LCA considerations, this
review covers these issues in the form of illustrative case
studies from the recent literature covering biofuels (eth-
anol, algal, and aviation), bioproducts, integrated biore-
fineries, and, explicitly, the feedstock production stage.
LCA methodological considerations within
biofuel and bioproduct life cycle stages
LCAs of biofuels and bioproducts consider five stages
(Figure 1). The feedstock production stage is perhaps
the most complex and regionally variable stage. For exam-
ple, agricultural equipment activity, fertilizer application,
N2O emissions, and irrigation rates are location-specific.
Soil carbon changes depend on local land use history over a
decade before commencement of feedstock production [7].
Furthermore, this stage is associated with land-use change
(LUC) which has been analyzed for corn ethanol [8], soy
biodiesel [9], and European biofuels [10]. LUC along with
land management change (LMC) may occur when large
quantities of feedstock are grown to meet regulatory or
market demand for biofuels or bioproducts as farmers turn
to crop switching, double cropping, and/or agricultural land
expansion potentially at the expense of valued natural lands
(grasslands, wetlands, forests). LUC and LMC cause car-
bon stock and other changes (e.g. in albedo which influ-
ences climate forcing). Transportation and distribution
stages occur between the farm and the biorefinery and
between the biorefinery and the point of sale. At the
biorefinery, conversion processes are biochemical, thermo-
chemical, or a hybrid and their design (e.g. separation
technology choice) and optimization can influence LCA
results as can consumption of catalysts and enzymes. As
discussed later, co-products and their treatment in LCA
also can drive LCA results. Finally, while biofuels are
combusted, returning the biogenic carbon they contain
to the atmosphere shortly after feedstock production, bio-
products are either short-lived or long-lived. Longer-lived,
non-biodegradable products may degrade over centuries so
that for the analysis time horizon, the biogenic carbon may
be treated as sequestered. This positive outcome from a
www.sciencedirect.com
 Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability analysis Dunn 89
Figure 1
Stages of biofuel and bioproduct LCA and influencing factors.
GHG perspective conflicts with an increase in solid waste.
Biofuel and bioproduct LCA are, therefore, quite complex,
which in part explains the wide range of LCA results
possible for any one biofuel or bioproduct.
Lignocellulosic biofuels
The United States produced 61 billion L of ethanol
(overwhelmingly corn starch) in 2017, 58% of global
production [11] with RFS-driven interest in expanding
volumes of lignocellulosic ethanol. Gerbrandt et al. [12]
summarized the input parameters of 80 different ligno-
cellulosic ethanol LCAs noting the complexity of feed-
stocks and the conditions under which they were grown,
the consideration of market-mediated effects like LUC,
and the lack of commercial-scale data as challenges in
narrowing ethanol LCA result ranges. They noted pre-
treatment technology choice in particular (e.g. dilute
acid, alkaline pretreatment, and steam explosion) influ-
enced LCA results. Emerging pretreatment processes,
such as ionic liquid (IL)-based processes, therefore,
merit evaluation. For example, Neupane et al. [13] report
that the integrated high gravity route to pretreating corn
stover with cholinium lysate or a comparably effective
protic IL could produce ethanol that is 45% and 70–85%
less GHG intensive than gasoline, respectively. One
reason ethanol is used in fuel is for its octane number.
Other bio-blendstocks may also have desirable fuel
properties and have been under consideration in the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Co-Optima initiative,
which has evaluated the sustainability of 24 bio-blend-
stocks using a high-level screening approach [14] and
two bio-blendstocks (isobutanol and aromatic-rich
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
hydrocarbons) in more detail [15], incorporating
techno-economic analysis and LCA.
Algal biofuels
Algae is often considered an attractive biofuel feedstock
given that it is a non-food feedstock with high lipid yields
that can use waste CO2 and low quality water and land to
grow. Tu et al. [16] reviewed 54 algal biofuels LCAs
(biodiesel and renewable diesel), considering their scope,
assumptions, and data sources. Unharmonized life-cycle
GHG emissions results exhibited a range of thousands of
g CO2e/MJ driven in part by limited details reported in
published studies, which Tu et al. assigned a transparency
level (Table 1). Strikingly, only half of studies they
surveyed provide detailed data and assumptions. Nearly
a third provided partial or no inventory data, which should
be a prerequisite for publication. All analysts should strive
for transparency in reporting results. Transparency in
assumptions, data sources, and calculations is essential
to increasing confidence in LCA and to the ability to
compare results across studies. Such comparisons are
pivotal to explaining LCA results to the public and to
policy makers. Tu et al. generated a comprehensive
harmonized inventory (algae cultivation, harvesting,
extraction, fuel upgrading, and defatted algae and co-
products) to be used in future analyses.
Recent algal biofuel LCAs [17,18] consider variations in
biorefinery product and feedstock supply chain and their
influence on LCA results. Quiroz-Arita et al. [17] evalu-
ated production of bisabolene, heptadecane, and ethanol
from Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 and reported that of these
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93
90 Energy biotechnology
Table 1
Transparency rating in Tu et al. [16]
Level Characteristics
3 Algae growth model, energy consumption, product yield described in terms of data sources,
assumptions, parameters
2 Provide process-level data (e.g. electricity consumption in dewatering)
1 Data are aggregated into full-process
0 Partial or no inventory data
three, ethanol demonstrated the most promising results.
Opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from all three
products included enhancing biofuel productivities at
the organism level and reducing energy consumed in
culture mixing and in separations. Furthermore, they
emphasized the potential to co-locate algal biofuel pro-
duction facilities with wastewater treatment plants to
exploit nutrient availability. Klein et al. [18] echoed this
point, exploring advantages of integrating algal biorefi-
neries with Brazilian ethanol production facilities. In
particular, the potential exists to use CO2 from ethanol
fermentation and to use nutrients in vinasse to reduce the
burdens of algal fuel production. Analyses that explore
these synergies are critical to guide optimal technology
deployment.
Aviation biofuels
Aviation biofuels have also been subject to significant
evaluation as the International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion is developing a Carbon Offsetting and Reduction
Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) which
requires the life-cycle GHG emissions of renewable jet
fuel (RJF) to be evaluated. Correspondingly, de Jong et al.
[19] considered six routes to RJF with a number of
feedstocks in a comprehensive analysis that illustrates the
wide possible variation in feedstock-to-fuel pathways.
Jatropha, camelina, and used cooking oil were converted
via hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids technology to
RJF. Willow, poplar, corn stover, and forest residue were
converted to RFJ via gasification and Fischer–Tropsch,
pyrolysis, and hydrothermal liquefaction. Finally, alco-
hol-to-jet, and direct sugars to hydrocarbons technologies
were used to convert corn, corn stover, and sugar cane to
RJF. Of these pathways, the Fischer–Tropsch route
offered the greatest GHG reductions (86–104%) com-
pared to fossil jet fuel. The authors preferred energy
allocation as a co-product allocation technique because
an alternative approach, system expansion, requires
detailed evaluations of the products that co-products
displace, which can be difficult to develop. Furthermore,
they emphasize that to use LCA in a global offsetting
scheme like CORSIA somewhat conflictingly requires
standardization yet must consider spatial variations, espe-
cially in feedstock production.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93
% of surveyed studies
in Tu et al.
20%
28%
28%
32%
Bioproducts
Markets for and interest in bioproducts are growing [20].
The analyst community’s exploration of bioproduct LCA
is less mature than that of biofuels although it is expand-
ing. Montazeri et al. [21] carried out a meta-analysis of
86 LCAs covering 34 bioproducts and found that most
offered a GHG reduction compared to a corresponding
conventional chemical. The bulk of these analyses
consider sugar-based feedstocks, with a minority consid-
ering lignin. Recent bioproduct LCAs have analyzed
photodegradable 2,5-furan dicarboxylic acid [22], poly-
hydroxylalkonoates [23], polybutylene succinate [24],
2,3-butanediol (co-produced with ethanol and hexanoic
acid) [25], l-lactic acid and ethyl lactate [26], a polyol and
bioresin [27]. Feedstocks include oil crops [27], algae [28],
and cellulosic feedstocks including corn stover [28,29],
wheat straw, miscanthus, and hardwood [24]. While there
are calls to include impacts of direct LUC (e.g. soil
organic carbon changes) and indirect LUC into biopro-
duct LCA [21], this is incredibly challenging given the
many factors that influence these impacts (see feedstock
production section) and may not be advisable for general
LCAs that are not company-specific and product-specific.
Transparency in data sources, calculation techniques,
assumptions, and co-product handling in bioproduct
LCA is as critical in bioproduct LCA as it is in biofuel
LCA, especially as this field of analysis grows.
Integrated biorefineries and co-product
allocation
Increasingly, analysts are considering co-production of
biofuels and bioproducts [30,31,32] given that they share
common feedstocks and that integrated biorefineries could
shift their product slate to account for market dynamics,
technology advances, and other factors that may increase
profitability and advance the bioeconomy. In the context of
LCA, co-product allocation between biofuels and biopro-
ducts poses a significant challenge yet development of
single product carbon intensities are essential to demon-
strate eligibility under biofuel policies [33]. Cai et al. [34]
address, for example, biorefineries co-producing renewable
diesel along with either succinic acid or adipic acid. In these
and similar cases, additional energy and chemicals are
consumed to produce these chemicals and total process
www.sciencedirect.com
 Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability analysis Dunn 91
burdens must be divided among the products. The authors
conclude that the process purpose co-product method,
which examines conversion at an individual unit operation
level, is strongly relevant to account for the materials and
energy consumption attributable to each product. Further-
more, in the current context of fuels-focused LCA, they
state that adopting a system expansion approach that treats
the bioproducts as displacing conventional products is
viable, even if the mass share of the co-products is large,
which in other cases has been avoided to prevent domi-
nance of results by displacement credits [19,35]. A key
consideration in adopting the systems expansion, or dis-
placement, methodology is whether the market is satu-
rated; if it is not, displacement could be considered a viable
approach. In general co-product treatment for biorefineries
is an area rich for further evaluation.
Regional variations in feedstock production
and agricultural management practices
One of the most challenging aspects of biofuel and
bioproduct LCA is evaluating feedstock production,
including regional agricultural management practices that
can have a profound influence on LCA results. Examples
of management practices include managing farming
equipment traffic to reduce soil compaction [36], using
manure as a soil amendment [37], and planting cover
crops [36,37]. It is notable that fertilizer use in feedstock
production, even for cellulosic crops like switchgrass, can
be key LCA drivers given resulting N2O emissions
[38,39]. Overall, landscape design is a critical factor in
producing sustainable feedstock [40,41,42]. For exam-
ple, Field et al. [40] report a 22g CO2e/MJ decrease in
switchgrass ethanol GHG emissions through judicious
selection of soil in which the feedstock was grown and
the fertilization rate. Bearing out conclusions of previous
analyses [43], Field et al. also note that spatially explicit
LCA is critical to capture the local influences of soil type
and climate influences. Climate dictates precipitation and
temperature where feedstock grows, which drives bio-
mass yield and N2O emissions from soils.
Conclusions and recent advances
The field of biofuel and bioproduct sustainability analysis
has advanced to further inform discussions of biofuel
sustainability in areas such as considering expanding
evaluation of key impacts beyond GHG emissions [44],
quantifying social impacts of the bioeconomy [45],
harmonizing approaches to comparing biomass produc-
tion worldwide [46], improving treatment of temporal
aspects of biofuels [47], and applying multi-attribute
uncertainty analysis [48].
Biofuel and bioproduct sustainability analysis in the form
of LCA is unavoidably complex given high variability in
regionally-specific feedstock production, conversion pro-
cess performance, inputs, and co-products, the potential
to include indirect effects such as LUC [8], and the
www.sciencedirect.com
influence of displacement of conventional products on
the chemical industry. Undoubtedly, the continued pur-
suit of characterizing the feedstock production stage
taking into account spatially explicit factors such as yield
and fertilization rates (including for countries like China
who are in the relatively early stages of evaluating the
sustainability of a bioeconomy [49]) and encompassing
LUC using multiple data sources including remote sens-
ing and satellite imagery [50], will be very important for
the field and inform the critical debate around biofuels’
overall role in mitigating climate change. The issue of
LUC remains in need of transparent, increasingly spa-
tially and situationally (e.g. taking into account LMC
such as cover crop adoption) explicit emission factors
for evaluation of carbon stock changes upon various land
transitions. Furthermore, the role of economic models in
establishing potential future LUC (as used in renewable
fuel policies) remain in need of critical evaluation and
should be backed up to the extent possible by remote
sensing and satellite data, taking into account uncertainty
in these data products. Additionally, as biomass conver-
sion technologies mature, it will be critical to generate
updated LCA results. Co-product treatment and uncer-
tainty characterization should remain active areas of dis-
cussion. Critically, all analysts should transparently report
data sources, parameters, key calculations, and assump-
tions (including co-product handling approach) to enable
results reproduction and comparison. This transparency
will strengthen LCA’s ability to enhance the sustainabil-
ity of commercial biofuels and bioproducts and to guide
the research and development of biofuels and biopro-
ducts at earlier development stages.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in
the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. CNBC: China plans nationwide use of ethanol gasoline by 2020,
state media says. 2017 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/china-
plans-nationwide-use-of-ethanol-gasoline-by-2020-state-media-
says.html.
2. International Energy Agency: Ethanol Blending Mandate (Brazil).
2017 https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/pams/brazil/
name-140350-en.php.
3. Rogers JN, Stokes B, Dunn JB, Cai H, Wu M, Haq Z, Baumes H: An
assessment of the potential products and economic and
environmental impacts resulting from a billion ton
bioeconomy. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 2017, 11:110-128.
4. International Organization for Standardization: Environmental
Management: Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework.
2006. 14040:2006.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93
92 Energy biotechnology
5. Lampert DJ, Cai H, Elgowainy A: Wells to wheels: water
consumption for transportation fuels in the United States.
Energy Environ Sci 2016, 9:787-802.
6. Tessum CW, Hill JD, Marshall JD: Life cycle air quality impacts of
conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the
United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014, 111:18490-18495.
7. Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM: Soil carbon
sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel
production: empirical evidence. GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8:66-80.
8. Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM: Influence of
 spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic
ethanol. GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8:1136-1149.
Provides overview of how LUC GHG estimation approach has evolved
over time and provides insights into generating detailed soil organic
carbon emission factors for biofuel-relevant LUC.
9. Chen R, Qin Z, Han J, Wang M, Taheripour F, Tyner W,
O’Connor D, Duffield J: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas
emission effects of biodiesel in the United States with induced
land use change impacts. Bioresour Technol 2018, 251:249-258.
10. Valin H, Peters D, van der Berg M, Frank S, Havlik P, Forsell N,
Hamelinck C: The Land Use Change Impact of Biofuels Consumed
in the EU Quantification of Area and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
European Commission; 2015.
11. Renewable Fuels Association: Industry Statistics. 2018 http://
www.ethanolrfa.org/resources/industry/statistics/.
12. Gerbrandt K, Chu PL, Simmonds A, Mullins KA, MacLean HL,
 Griffin WM, Saville BA: Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic
ethanol: a review of key factors and methods affecting
calculated GHG emissions and energy use. Curr Opin
Biotechnol 2016, 38:63-70.
Provides insights into drivers of bio-ethanol LCA and reviews 80 studies
on this topic, providing details of the conversion process and potential
variations, especially in pretreatment technology.
13. Neupane B, Murthy Konda NVSN, Singh S, Simmons BA,
Scown CD: Life-cycle greenhouse gas and water intensity
of cellulosic biofuel production using cholinium lysinate
ionic liquid pretreatment. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2017,
5:10176-10185.
14. Dunn JB, Biddy M, Jones S, Cai H, Benavides PT, Markham J,
 Tao L, Tan E, Kinchin C, Davis R et al.: Environmental, economic,
and scalability considerations and trends of selected fuel
economy-enhancing biomass-derived blendstocks. ACS
Sustainable Chem Eng 2018, 6:561-569.
Describes a high-level screening approach to evaluating commercial
potential, environmental performance of a range of biologically derived
blendstocks.
15. Cai H, Markham J, Jones S, Benavides PT, Dunn JB, Biddy M,
Tao L, Lamers P, Phillips S: Techno-economic analysis and life-
cycle analysis of two light-duty bioblendstocks: isobutanol
and aromatic-rich hydrocarbons. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng
2018, 6:8790-8800.
16. Tu QS, Eckelman M, Zimmerman J: Meta-analysis and
 harmonization of life cycle assessment studies for algae
biofuels. Environ Sci Technol 2017, 51:9419-9432.
Comprehensive review of algae biofuel LCA studies with full details
behind reported harmonized data set.
17. Quiroz-Arita C, Sheehan JJ, Bradley TH: Life cycle net energy
and greenhouse gas emissions of photosynthetic
cyanobacterial biorefineries: challenges for industrial
production of biofuels. Algal Res 2017, 26:445-452.
18. Klein BC, Bonomi A, Maciel R: Integration of microalgae
production with industrial biofuel facilities: a critical review.
Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 2018, 82:1376-1392.
19. de Jong S, Antonissen K, Hoefnagels R, Lonza L, Wang M, Faaij A,
 Junginger M: Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
from renewable jet fuel production. Biotechnol Biofuels 2017,
10:64.
Presents LCA results for six routes (hydroprocessed esters and fatty
acids, gasification and Fischer–Tropsch, pyrolysis, hydrothermal lique-
faction, alcohol-to-jet, and direct sugars to hydrocarbons) to renewable
jet fuel.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93
20. Mary B, Scarlata C, Kinchin C: Chemicals from Biomass: A Market
Assessment of Bioproducts with Near-Term Potential. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2016.
21. Montazeri M, Zaimes GG, Khanna V, Eckelman MJ: Meta-
 analysis of life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for
priority biobased chemicals. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2016,
4:6443-6454.
Carried out a meta-analysis of 86 LCAs covering 34 bioproducts including
from corn carbohydrates, non-corn sugars, and lignin.
22. Isola C, Sieverding HL, Raghunathan R, Sibi MP, Webster DC,
Sivaguru J, Stone JJ: Life cycle assessment of
photodegradable polymeric material derived from renewable
bioresources. J Cleaner Prod 2017, 142:2935-2944.
23. Leong Y, Show P, Lan J, Loh H-S, Lam H, Ling T: Economic and
environmental analysis of PHAs production process. Clean
Technol Environ Policy 2017, 19:1941-1953.
24. Patel MK, Bechu A, Villegas JD, Bergez-Lacoste M, Yeung K,
Murphy R, Woods J, Mwabonje ON, Ni Y, Patel AD, Gallahger J,
Bryant D: Second generation bio-based plastics are becoming
a reality – non-renewable energy and greenhouse gas (GHG)
balance of succinic acid-based plastic end products made
from lignocellulosic biomass. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 2018,
12:426-441.
25. Benalcázar EA, Deynoot BG, Noorman H, Osseweijer P,
Posada JA: Production of bulk chemicals from lignocellulosic
biomass via thermochemical conversion and syngas
fermentation: a comparative techno-economic and
environmental assessment of different site-specific supply
chain configurations. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 2017, 11:861-886.
26. Adom FK, Dunn JB: Life cycle analysis of corn-stover derived
polymer-grade l-lactic acid and ethyl lactate: greenhouse gas
emissions and fossil energy consumption. Biofuel Bioprod
Biorefin 2017, 11:258-268.
27. Bos HL, Meesters KPH, Conijn SG, Corré WJ, Patel MK:
Comparing biobased products from oil crops versus sugar
crops with regard to non-renewable energy use, GHG
emissions and land use. Ind Crops Prod 2016, 84:366-374.
28. Adom F, Dunn JB, Han J, Sather N: Life-cycle fossil energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of bioderived
chemicals and their conventional counterparts. Environ Sci
Technol 2014, 48:14624-14631.
29. Benavides PT, Dunn JB, Han J, Biddy M, Markham J: Exploring
 comparative energy and environmental benefits of virgin,
recycled, and bio-derived PET bottles. ACS Sustainable Chem
Eng 2018, 6:9725-9733.
Discusses methodological choices regarding end-of-life and potential
counterfactual scenarios for waste management.
30. Venkata Mohan S, Nikhil GN, Chiranjeevi P, Nagendranatha
 Reddy C, Rohit MV, Kumar AN, Sarkar O: Waste biorefinery
models towards sustainable circular bioeconomy:
critical review and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2016,
215:2-12.
Review of technologies to convert waste feedstocks to fuels and
chemicals.
31. Budzianowski WM: High-value low-volume bioproducts
 coupled to bioenergies with potential to enhance business
development of sustainable biorefineries (Report). Renew
Sustainable Energy Rev 2017, 70:793.
Describes routes to enhancing commercial viability of integrated bior-
efineries through incorporation of high market value bioproducts.
32. Budzianowski WM, Postawa K: Total chain integration of
sustainable biorefinery systems. Appl Energy 2016, 184:1432-
1446.
33. Canter CE, Dunn JB, Han J, Wang Z, Wang M: Policy implications
of allocation methods in the life cycle analysis of integrated
corn and corn stover ethanol production. BioEnergy Res 2016,
9:77-87.
34. Hao C, Jeongwoo H, Michael W, Ryan D, Mary B, Eric T: Life-cycle
 analysis of integrated biorefineries with co-production of
biofuels and bio-based chemicals: co-product handling
methods and implications. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 2018,
12:815-833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1893.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainability analysis Dunn 93
Comprehensive analysis of two case studies in which biofuels and
biochemicals are co-produced with full discussion of co-product hand-
ling method options and their advantages and disadvantages.
35. Wang M, Huo H, Arora S: Methods of dealing with co-products
 of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within
the U.S. context. Energy Policy 2011, 39:5726-5736.
Classic paper regarding co-product treatment techniques in biofuel LCA.
36. Chagas MF, Bordonal RO, Cavalett O, Carvalho JLN, Bonomi A,
Newton LS: Environmental and economic impacts of different
sugarcane production systems in the ethanol biorefinery.
Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 2016, 10:89-106.
37. Qin Z, Canter CE, Dunn JB, Mueller M, Kwon H, Han J,
Wander MM, Wang M: Land management change greatly
impacts biofuels’ greenhouse gas emissions. GCB Bioenergy
2018, 10:370-381.
38. Leilei R, Ajay KB, Stephen KH, Robertson GP: Nitrogen
 fertilization challenges the climate benefit of cellulosic
biofuels. Environ Res Lett 2016, 11:064007.
Important case study describing how over-fertilization can dramatically
increase cellulosic biofuels’ life-cycle GHG emissions.
39. Mbonimpa EG, Kumar S, Owens VN, Chintala R, Sieverding HL,
Stone JJ: Nitrogen rate and landscape impacts on life cycle
energy use and emissions from switchgrass-derived ethanol.
GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8:750-763.
40. Field JL, Evans SG, Marx E, Easter M, Adler PR, Dinh T, Willson B,
 Paustian K: High-resolution techno–ecological modelling of a
bioenergy landscape to identify climate mitigation
opportunities in cellulosic ethanol production. Nat Energy
2018, 3:211-219.
Describes opportunities to lower cellulosic biofuels life-cycle GHG emis-
sions through strategic choice of soils and fertilization rates; illustrates
need for careful consideration of feedstock supply radius and targeting of
marginal lands for feedstock growth.
41. Ssegane H, Negri MC, Quinn J, Urgun-Demirtas M:
 Multifunctional landscapes: site characterization and field-
scale design to incorporate biomass production into an
agricultural system. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 80:179-190.
Describes approach to designing bioenergy landscapes at the field
scale to exploit cellulosic crops’ ability to uptake nutrients. It also
discusses strategies for landscape design to enhance biomass produc-
tion sustainability.
www.sciencedirect.com
42. Ssegane H, Negri MC: An integrated landscape designed for
commodity and bioenergy crops for a tile-drained agricultural
watershed. J Environ Qual 2016, 45:1588-1596.
43. U.S. Department of Energy: 2016 Billion-Ton Report, Volume 2:
Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios from
Volume 1. U.S. Department of Energy; 2016.
44. Kemper L, Partzsch L: A water sustainability framework for
assessing biofuel certification schemes: does European
hybrid governance ensure sustainability of palm oil from
Indonesia? J Cleaner Prod 2018, 192:835-843.
45. Rafiaani P, Kuppens T, Van Dael M, Azadi H, Lebailly P, Van
 Passel S: Social sustainability assessments in the biobased
economy: towards a systemic approach. Renew Sustainable
Energy Rev 2018, 82:1839-1853.
Describes how to systematically expand biofuel and bioproduct sustain-
ability analysis to include social factors including health and safety, food
security, and employment, among other factors.
46. Markus AM, Ralf S, Felix W, Joerg AP: Making environmental
assessments of biomass production systems comparable
worldwide. Environ Res Lett 2016, 11:034005.
47. Daystar J, Venditti R, Kelley SS: Dynamic greenhouse gas
 accounting for cellulosic biofuels: implications of time
based methodology decisions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017,
22:812-826.
Comprehensive overview of handling temporal issues in biofuel LCA,
especially when feedstocks are forest-derived.
48. Rajagopalan N, R.Kelley S, Daystar J: Multi-attribute uncertainty
analysis of the life cycle of lignocellulosic feedstock for biofuel
production. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 2017, 11:269-280.
49. Qin Z, Zhuang Q, Cai X, He Y, Huang Y, Jiang D, Lin E, Liu Y,
 Tang Y, Wang MQ: Biomass and biofuels in China: toward
bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on
the environment. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 2018, 82:
2387-2400.
Full description of opportunities to increase the bioeconomy in China
along with potential challenges.
50. Dunn JB, Merz D, Copenhaver K, Mueller S: Measured extent of
agricultural expansion depends on analysis technique. Biofuel
Bioprod Biorefin 2017, 11:247-257.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2019, 57:88–93