Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Environmental sustainability of bioethanol production from rice straw

in India: A review
Renu Singh a, Monika Srivastava a, Ashish Shukla b,n
a
Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture, IARI, New Delhi 110012, India
b
Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rice is the main staple food in most of the Asian countries and rice crops generate a huge amount of rice
Received 19 January 2015 straw as crop residue in the fields. Unsustainable use of rice straw and open burning of crop in the field
Accepted 1 October 2015 not only produces threat to environment by producing large amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission,
Available online 11 November 2015
but also make farmer's loose a very viable by-product. Rice straw can be used in bio-ethanol production
Keywords: and bring additional income and sustainable utilization. It will also provide clean energy solution to ever
Rice straw increasing energy demand in India. However, it becomes more important to study the sustainability of
Bio-ethanol bio-ethanol production from rice straw and how it can make sense in today's Indian agricultural scenario.
Life cycle Although, the bioethanol obtained from rice straw is a carbon neutral in nature, but the concerns of
Greenhouse gas emission
environmental impacts have been raised for the whole process i.e. from rice cultivation, rice logistics,
pretreatment techniques, bioethanol generation and transportation. The present review focuses on the
environmental sustainability issues arising from use of rice straw for bioethanol production. The
environmental impacts are assessed by studying the emission of greenhouse gases from each stage of life
cycle. The paper presents an outlook on current status and future prospects of ethanol blending in the
country.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
2. Rice cultivation in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
3. Production of rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4. Characterization of rice straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5. Rice straw collection, processing and transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
6. Sustainable straw extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7. Burning of rice straw vs bioethanol production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8. Bioethanol production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.1. Pretreatment technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.1.1. Physical pretreatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.1.2. Chemical pretreatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.1.3. Biological pretreatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.1.4. Combined pretreatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.2. Enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of rice straw for bioethanol production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 442477658587.
E-mail addresses: ashish.shukla@coventry.ac.uk, ashish.physik@gmail.com (A. Shukla).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.005
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216 203

9. Bioethanol distribution and its end use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

10. Energy consumption and GHG emission from bioethanol processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
11. Bioethanol usage and its present status in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
12. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

1. Introduction production from sugars, starch and lignocellulosic materials is an

attractive alternative option for fossil fuels. It has higher octane
The term “Sustainable agriculture” depicts an economically number and higher heat of vaporization due to which it can be
viable, environmentally safe and socially accepted food, fiber or easily blend with the gasoline or use as alcohol in dedicated
fuel production system [1]. Sustainable agriculture has been tra- engines [13]. In U.S, corn starch and in Brazil, sugarcane juice and
ditionally existed in more western societies and it represented a molasses are mainly used for bioethanol production and 89% of
more environmentally sound and socially responsible system of global ethanol production is contributed by both these countries.1
agriculture production [2]. UN Conference on Environment and In India, sugarcane molasses is mainly used for ethanol production
Development in Rio de Janeiro [3] has brought out the concept of and has about 330 distilleries with the annual production capacity
sustainability. Loon et al. [4] described sustainable agriculture as a of over 4.0 billion liters [14]. Only corn based or sugarcane based
set of post material values that emphasizes on conservation of ethanol production cannot substitute the one trillion gallons of
agriculture and food, animal welfare and economic assistance to fossil fuel which is presently consumed worldwide each year [15].
farmers. Agricultural sustainability involves ecological, economic Also, the utilization of these edible food crops for bioethanol
and social dimensions and under each dimensions there are sev- production raises the question of food security and thus, it is not
eral attributes which are measured through indicators [5–8]. Some appropriate for sustainable development. So, there is a need to
scientists have developed fundamental principle of sustainability derive bioethanol from some other sources which do not put
[9–11] that includes: pressure on food crops. This led to the bioethanol production from
inedible potential feed stocks [16]. More sustainable technologies
1. Multidimensional approaches considering ecological, economic for bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass have been
and social aspects at an equivalent level; investigated [17]. Utilization of lignocellulosic biomass for bioe-
2. A systemic investigation that evaluate not only single factors but thanol production is the better opportunity as it does not compete
also complex functions and processes with various interactions with the food crops and animal feeder and moreover these cel-
between elements. This also includes the assessment of sus- lulosic materials contribute to environmental sustainability [18]. A
tainability with regard to a suitable temporal and spatial scale; variety of lignocellulosic agricultural wastes are available for
3. A consensus based process of decision finding with special focus ethanol production such as sugarcane baggase, rice hull, timber
on ecological aspects of sustainability; species, willow, salix, switchgrass, softwood, rice straw, wheat
4. Transparent concepts offering clear recommendations for straw etc. [19]. Among all the lignocellulosic substances, cereal
implementation; straws are most abundant, cheap, renewable and easily available
5. Extremely flexible and dynamic strategies of assessment and [20]. Rice straw is a promising alternative for bioethanol produc-
implementation showing a high transferability to manifold tion [21].
systems (like different crop cultures, crop rotations, environ- Rice (Oryza sativa) is the main staple food of the Asian coun-
mental conditions and/or marketing systems); tries. In 2011, annual world rice production is 721.4 MT and 90.48%
6. Focus on economic and social principles. are from Asian countries [22] and this will generate 973.89 MT of
rice straw in the fields [23]. Although, rice is the world's second
In order to achieve sustainable development, the environ- largest cereal crop after wheat, but it generate largest amount of
mental efficiency (i.e. the use of energy, space and raw materials) crop residues, approximately 330 MMT [24]. In India, major agro
of current agricultural production methods must be increased residues generated are Rice straw (112 MMT), rice husk
with a factor of 20 by 2040 [12]. In 2005, United Nations defined (22.4 MMT), wheat straw (109.9), sugarcane tops (97.8) and bag-
Environmental sustainability as meeting the needs of the present gase (101.3) (Fig. 1) [25]. Only 20% of rice straw produced in the
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet world is utilized [26] and rest is left as waste. In most of the Asian
their needs. Environmental sustainability can be perceived as countries, open burning of rice straw is in common practice for its
balancing the three pillars of economic and social development disposal that leads to the air pollution [27]. In India, 23% of rice
with environmental protection. For a sustainable development, the straw is either left or burnt in the field and the open burning of
development of economy and environment should go together as rice straw is a threat to atmosphere and climate as its contributes
both are necessary for the development of human beings. Pre- 0.05% to GHG emissions [28]. The energy content of rice straw is
sently, the main problem of world is how to reduce emission of around 14 MJ per kg at 10% moisture content. The by-products are
fly ash and bottom ash, which have an economic value and could
greenhouse gases (GHG) for mitigation of climate change and for
be used in cement and/or brick manufacturing, construction of
sustainable growth of economy. This can be achieved by promot-
roads and embankments, etc. It should not be wasted by burning,
ing new renewable sources of energy such as geothermal energy,
unless utilize it for generation of energy.
wind energy, solar energy, biomass based energy (bioethanol,
Environment sustainability mainly deals with the emission of
biodiesel, bio-hydrogen). Due to day by day increase in demand of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) during the entire process of bioethanol
energy and depletion of conventional sources of energy, the fossil
production and its use in transport sector. The green house gas
fuel prices are rising very speedily. There is a need to find out an
(GHG) emission reduction target for the EU is 20% by 2020 (from
alternative source of energy which fulfills the criteria of sustain-
able development that means it not only enhances the world's
economy, but also supports the environment. Bioethanol 1
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/
204 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216
Fig. 1. Agri-residue in India [25].
1990 levels) and for the UK it is 34%.2 Life cycle assessment (LCA) is
an important tool for dealing environmental sustainability issues.
It evaluates the environmental aspects of bioethanol production
system. It is a conceptual framework and methodology for the
assessment of environmental impacts of product systems on a
cradle-to-grave basis. Several studies have been reported on LCA of
bioethanol production in different countries such as in Thailand,
USA, Japan and China [29–33] and from different biomass sources
such as corn stover, willow, switch grass, miscanthus and sugar-
cane [34–36]. Till now very few comprehensive research studies
have been done on evaluating the environmental sustainability
of rice straw based bioethanol production in India. The objective of
present research study is to profoundly analyze the each stage
of rice straw based bioethanol production in terms of environ-
mental sustainability and its future prospects in India.
2. Rice cultivation in India
Rice cropping pattern in India vary widely from region to
region and to a lesser extent from one year to another year
depending on a wide range of soil and climatic conditions. There
are many varieties of rice which are cultivated with differential
response to climatic factors Rainfall is the most important weather
element for successful cultivation of rice. Rice being a tropical and
sub-tropical plant requires a fairly high temperature, ranging from
20 °C to 40 °C. The yield of rice is influenced by the solar radiation
particularly during the last 35–45 days of its ripening period. Soils
having good water retention capacity, good amount of clay and
organic matter are considered ideal for rice cultivation. It grows
well in soils having a pH range between 5.5 and 6.5. The land is
ploughed comprehensively in wet or lowland cultivation and
puddle with 3–5 cm of standing water in the field. The land is
leveled after puddling to facilitate a uniform distribution of water
and fertilizers. In dry or semi-dry upland cultivation, the fields are
ploughed and harrowed in summer for achieving the required-
tilth. Farmyard manure is homogeneously distributed 2–3 weeks
before sowing. Under the semi-dry system, the rain-water is
impounded when the crop is about 1.5–2 months old and there-
after it is converted into a wetland crop. By that time, major
2 3
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvaud/
228/22806.htm
operations, such as weeding, inter-culturing and fertilizer appli-
cation might have been completed.3
3. Production of rice
Rice is one of the major food crops of India in terms of area and
production. India comes at second position after china in rice pro-
duction. However, productivity of India is much lower than that of
Egypt, Japan, China, Vietnam, USA and Indonesia and also the
average productivity of the world [37]. The production of rice in
different countries is shown in Table 1 [38]. It occupies about 24% of
gross cropped area of the country and contributes 42% of total food
grain production and 45% of total cereal production of the country
[39]. The productivity of rice has increased from 1984 kg per hec-
tare in 2004–05 to 2372 kg per hectare in 2011–12.4 In India, major
rice producing states are West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pra-
desh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Bihar and Chhattisgarh (Table 2)
[40]. The cultivation of rice produces two types of residues rice
straw and rice husk. The current study is focused on the use of rice
straw for bioethanol generation. In India, rice straw is generated in
large quantity and thus easily available for bioethanol production. In
some of the states such as Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, East
M.P. rice straw is available only in autumn season while in Bihar,
West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, it is available
almost round the year (Table 3) [41]. The availability of rice straw
can be calculated by the following method:
Availability ¼ P T1  T2  T3  T4 ð1Þ
where,
P ¼Amount of straw present.
T1 ¼Conventional competitive uses (i.e. feed, bedding, fiber
uses, etc.).
T2 ¼New competitive uses that may be relevant in the near
future.
T3 ¼Amount of straw that has to be left behind to conserve soil
quality.
T4 ¼Amount of biomass that is not financially feasible to
remove (biomass density ton/ha may be too low to make collec-
tion financially feasible).
http://www.archive.india.gov.in/citizen/agriculture
4
http://agricoop.nic.in
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216 205

Table 1
Rice straw production in different countries [38].

Country Rice production (million t) Rice straw (million t)

China 166 74.70

India 133.51 60.08
Indonesia 51.85 23.33
Bangladesh 38.06 17.13
Vietnam 34.61 15.57
Thailand 27 12.15
Myanmar 21 9.86
Philippines 13.17 5.93
Brazil 10.22 4.60
Japan 9.86 4.44
506.18 227.78

Table 2 5. Rice straw collection, processing and transportation

Rice straw generation and their uses in different states of India [40].
After harvesting, rice straw is collected using baler machine and
State Total rice straw Surplus (kt) Domestic Other activ-
produced (kt) use (kt) ities (kt) tractor. At the time of harvesting, the rice straw contains 60–70%
water (on weight basis) and it should be dried until the water
West Bengal 16009 1601 8477 5931 content is below 25% for long term storage purposes because if the
Uttar Pradesh 12548 3137 6781 2630
moisture content of baled straw is above 25%, fermentation will be
Andhra Pradesh 11312 1131 1015 10181
Punjab 10436 8349 1380 1073
commenced [23]. Natural drying of rice straw is preferred due to
Tamil Nadu 6803 680 1674 4743 low intrinsic value of the product. The baled straw is first trans-
Orissa 6288 629 3078 3986 ported to nearby collection center and then to the bioethanol pro-
Bihar 5584 1117 1984 1389 cessing units. The transportation distance of straw from the rice
Chhattisgarh 4844 484 398 2376
farms to the bioethanol processing plant was estimated based on
Assam 4280 428 3852
Karnataka 3539 177 3362 Eqs. (2) and (3) [50].
Haryana 3037 2429 398 209 
Radius of the area ðRÞ ðkmÞ ¼ F=ðπf a f 1c YÞ 1=2 ð2Þ
Maharashtra 2621 262 2358
Jharkhand 2279 456 1823
where,
Madhya Pradesh 1623 162 1083 378
Gujarat 1370 137 979 254
F¼Annual feedstock demand, t
Kerala 777 78 278 421 π¼Constant
Uttaranchal 650 162 487 fa ¼ Fraction of total farmland from which feedstock can be
Tripura 636 64 572 collected or produced
Jammu and 628 502 61 65
f1c ¼Fraction of surrounding farmland containing crops
Kashmir
Manipur 479 48 431 Y¼Biomass yield per unit area, t/km2
Nagaland 298 30 268
Transportation distanceðCollection centre
Meghalaya 208 21 188
Rajasthan 183 37 100 47 Processing plantÞðKmÞ ¼ 2Rf w =3 ð3Þ
Arunachal 170 17 153
Pradesh
where,
Goa 161 16 145 fw ¼Road winding factor
Mizoram 149 15 134
Himachal 131 105 13 13 The timeliness of straw harvesting, collection and transporta-
Pradesh
tion is a major concern. In northern India generally rice and wheat
Pondicherry 93 9 19 65
Andaman and 34 3 30 system (RWS) cropping pattern is used. In RWS, there is short
Nicobar interval of time between rice harvesting and wheat plantation and
Sikkim 24 2 22 any delay in planting adversely affects the wheat crop. The rice
Total 97192 22289 27320 47584
straw has low bulk-density and transporting the large volumes of
straw required for bioethanol generation exerts a major cost. The
4. Characterization of rice straw harvesting system depends on the amount of straw, field size and
ground conditions for the use of machinery. The abrasive nature of
Rice straw is mainly composed of cellulose, hemicelluloses, the rice straw creates high wear and maintenance for processing
lignin, silica and ash content. The chemical composition of rice equipment, resulting in high processing cost [23]. Lack of har-
straw depends on varieties and growing season [42]. The general vesting machinery, high transportation cost and labor charges
composition of rice straw is cellulose (33–47%), hemicellulose (19– compels the farmers to burn the rice straw. In India, every year
approximately 22289 Gg of rice straw surplus is produced out of
27%), lignin (5–24%) [43,44] and silica (18.3%) [45] (Table 4) [46]. In
which 13915 Gg is estimated to be burnt in the field [51]. Some of
the world, among all the agricultural crop residues, rice straw has
the major factors that affect the bioethanol generation are:
the most available cellulose source. The fundamental structural
accessibility of rice straw throughout the year, transportation cost
unit in straw cell walls is micro fibrils. In the cell walls, the cel-
and infra-structural settings.
lulose chains are joined together by hydrogen bonds to form
crystalline micro fibrils. Micro-fibrils provide the mechanical 6. Sustainable straw extraction
strength to the straw cell walls and these are bonded by a gel
matrix composed of hemicellulose, lignin and other carbohydrate Farmers use the rice straw as source of soil nutrients and the
polymers to form bio-composites [47–49]. exporting of rice straw from the field leads to humus unbalance
206 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216

Table 3
Sowing and harvesting periods of rice straw in major states of India [Adapted from [41]].

State Jan. Feb. Mar Apr Ma Jun. Jul. Aug Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Punjab
Himachal
Pradesh
Jammu &
Kashmir
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Assam
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice
Bihar
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice
East Madhya
Pradesh
Orissa
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice
East U.P.
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice
Andhra Pradesh
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice
Karnataka
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice
Kerala
Autumn season
rice
Winter rice
Summer rice

Sowing time
Harvesting time

and soil nutrient depletion. The amount of straw that can be
extracted in a sustainable manner is the main question in esti-
mating the availability of rice straw. Maintaining soil fertility is the
major factor while assessing the sustainability of rice straw utili-
zation for bioethanol production. There are various factors on
which amount of agri-residues collectable for biofuels depends
such as local environmental conditions, crop rotations, existing
soil fertility, slope of the land and farming practices [52]. The
amount of rice straw that needs to be incorporated in the soil in
order to maintain soil quality will depend on crop yields, soil
texture and on climate. If crop yields are high, more straw can be
removed because root turnover and stubble already provide
enough organic matter to the soil. Sheehan et al. [36] reported that
60% of the rice straw can be easily removed from the fields
without any loss of productivity and soil degradation. According to
METI [53] in Japan, half of the straw generated is utilized for
bioethanol production (0.25 Kl/t-dry straw; total straw production
7,897,350 t-dry) without degrading soil quality leading to
987,170 kl bioethanol production which can replace about 2% of
gasoline consumption. Koga and Tajima [54] examined that there
is more emission of greenhouse gases mainly methane gas when
rice straw was incorporated into the soil (total CO2-equivalent
GHG emissions for two rice varieties Kirara 397 and Kita-aoba
were 25.5 and 28.2 MgCO2 ha  1 respectively) as compare to the
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216 207

Table 4 7. Burning of rice straw vs bioethanol production

Proximate analysis and major element of ash in rice
straw [46].
Farmers burn the rice straw left in the field in order to clear it
Higher heating value (constant volume) for the next crop. The burning of rice straw generates a lot of
harmful gaseous into the atmosphere that leads to the air pollu-
MJ/kg 15.09 tion. Every year, approximately 15 Mt of rice straw is burned alone
Btu/lb 6486
in Punjab. Burning of crop residues obtained from rice-wheat
Proximate analysis (% dry fuel)
Fixed Carbon 15.86 cropping system of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh
Volatile matter 65.47 causes the emission of greenhouse gases that ultimately leads to
Ash 18.67 the climate change. The burning of rice straw generates 70% CO2,
Total ultimate analysis (% dry fuel) 100 7% CO, 0.66% CH4 and 2.09% N2O [55]. Gadde et al. [28] also
Carbon 38.24
Hydrogen 5.20
reported that different types of GHGs and other harmful gases
Oxygen 36.26 such as CO2, N2O, CH4, CO, non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC),
Nitrogen 0.87 NOx, SO2, and particulate matter (PM) are emitted from open field
Sulfur 0.18 burning of rice straw (Table 5 and 6) [28]. The utilization of agri-
Chlorine 0.58
Ash 18.67
residues for power generation is a green initiative to provide
Total 100 electricity and thermal energy. The power potential of different
Elemental composition of Ash (%) varieties of residues produced in Uttar Pradesh is shown in Table 7
Silicon oxide (SiO2) 74.67 [56]. The exploitation of rice straw for bioethanol generation emits
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 1.04
fewer amounts of GHG and also lignin, unreacted carbohydrates
Titanium oxide (TiO2) 0.09
Ferrous oxide (Fe2O3) 0.85 and other organics produced during the process is used for steam
Calcium oxide (CaO) 3.01 and electricity generation. Therefore, use of rice straw for bioe-
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 1.75 thanol generation helps in becoming more energy independent
Sodium oxide (Na2O) 0.96
and also, provides employment and direct economic benefit to
Potassium oxide (K2O) 12.30
Phosphorous penta oxide (P2O5) 1.41 local communities. It can be concluded that conversion of rice
Total 100 straw for the production of bioethanol is a more sustainable pro-
Undetermined 2.68 cess rather than the open burning of rice straw.

8. Bioethanol production
Table 5
Rice straw data of India [28].
Conversion of rice straw into bio-ethanol is a very complicated
Total rice straw produced in India 97,192 kt process due to the presence of complex structure of lignin and
Surplus produced 22,289 kt hemicelluloses with cellulose [16,57]. The production of ethanol
Rice straw used for domestic purposes 27,320 kt (28% of total
surplus)
from rice straw includes four major operations pretreatment,
Other activities 47,584 kt hydrolysis, fermentation and distillation [58] (Fig. 2).
Lower heating value of rice straw 14 MJ/kg
% contribution from open burning 0.05
8.1. Pretreatment technologies
GHG emissions from open field burning 566,165 tCO2ea  1
Total surplus subjected to open burning in Punjab 48%
and Haryana Rice straw comprises of a compact packing of cellulose, hemi-
Total rice straw burnt in India 13,915 kt (62% of total celluloses and lignin [59] which causes difficulties in bioethanol
surplus)
production. Therefore, a pretreatment process is essential to dis-
rupt lignocellulosic complex, to remove lignin, to reduce cellulose
crystallinity and to increase the porosity of the materials [60–62].
Table 6 A pretreatment process prepares the lignocellulosic biomass more
Emission from open field burning of rice straw in India [28]. amenable for hydrolysis [63]. The pretreatment of rice straw
S.no. Name of pollutant EF (g/kgdm) India (Gg)
enhances the rate of production as well as the total yield of sugars
[64]. It increases the digestibility of the substances for enzymatic
1 CO2 1460 16253 hydrolysis [65, 66]. The pretreatment technologies can be classi-
2 CH4 1.20 13 fied as physical, chemical, biological and combined pretreatment
3 N2O 0.07 1
techniques.
4 CO 34.70 386
5 NMHC 4 45
6 NOx 3.10 35 8.1.1. Physical pretreatments
7 SO2 2 22 Physical pretreatment includes grinding and milling, irradia-
8 Total particulate matter (TPM) 13 145
tion, steaming, temperature and pressure etc. Microwave irradia-
9 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 12.95 144
tion could change the ultra structure of cellulose [67] degrade
Gg- Giga gram, g/kgdm ¼ gram per kg of dry matters lignin and hemicelluloses in lignocellulosic materials and increase
the enzymatic susceptibility of lignocellulosic materials [68].
Hideno et al. [69] found that in terms of glucose recovery as well
as energy saving, wet disk milling is better than ball milling.
rice straw removal from the fields. Hence, on one hand rice straw
removal reduces the GHG emissions; other hand the rice straw 8.1.2. Chemical pretreatments
removed is available for bio-ethanol production which in turn Chemical pretreatment methods such as lime, acid, steam
leads to the socioeconomic development of the farmers. explosion, sulfur dioxide explosion, ammonia fiber explosion, ionic
208 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216

Table 7
Power potential of different types of residues in Uttar Pradesh [56].

Crop residue Area (kha) Crop pProduction (kT/Yr) Biomass generation (kT/Yr) Biomass surplus (kT/Yr) Power potential (MWe)

Paddy Straw 5315.4 10916.3 16374.4 4093.6 491.2

Wheat Pod 6016.2 16389.0 4916.7 2458.4 344.2
Wheat Stalks 6016.2 16389.0 24583.6 2458.4 319.6
Paddy Husk 5315.4 10916.3 2183.3 1746.6 192.1
Maize Stalks 768.9 1199.5 2399.1 959.6 124.8
Bajra Cobs 746.9 853.2 281.6 197.1 25.6
Maize Cobs 768.9 1199.5 359.9 179.9 25.2
Bajra Stalks 746.9 853.2 1706.4 170.6 22.2
Gram Stalks 312.8 282.0 338.4 101.5 13.2
Bajra Husk 746.9 853.2 256.0 64.0 7.7
Arhar Stalks 199.3 211.3 528.3 52.8 6.9
Jowar Stalks 208.2 195.5 332.3 33.2 4.32
Arhar Husk 199.3 211.3 63.4 31.7 3.80
Jowar Cobs 208.2 195.5 97.7 19.5 2.74
Jowar Husk 208.2 195.5 39.1 19.5 2.35
Mustard Husk 43.3 33.1 16.9 16.0 1.92
Urad Stalks 264.2 106.8 117.5 11.8 1.53
Urad Husk 264.2 106.8 21.4 10.7 1.28
Mustard Stalks 43.3 33.1 59.6 8.9 1.16
Groundnut Stalks 48.4 42.9 85.8 8.6 1.12
Groundnut Shell 48.4 42.9 12.9 9.0 1.08
Masoor Stalks 49.2 34.2 61.5 6.1 0.80
Barley Stalks 27.0 29.6 38.4 3.84 0.50
Kodo millets Stalks 4.30 2.70 3.13 2.51 0.33
Moong Stalks 25.4 12.7 13.9 1.39 0.18
Peas and beans Stalks 5.8 4.39 2.20 1.10 0.14
Small millets Stalks 12.3 8.0 9.6 0.96 0.13
Sawan Stalks 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.089
Onion Stalks 4.35 96.2 4.81 0.48 0.067
Others 7.1 1.03 4.48 0.45 0.056
Total 14059.4 30418.7 54912.4 12668.7 1596.2

liquid and others have been developed for pretreatment of bio-
mass [70]. Different types of chemicals such as alkali, acids,
organic acids, peroxides etc. are utilized for chemical pretreatment
process. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH),
calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) are generally used for alkali pre-
treatment. Sodium hydroxide increases the internal surface of
cellulose, decreases the degree of polymerization and crystallinity
and thereby disrupting the lignin structure [71]. Calcium hydro-
xide removes the acetyl groups from hemicelluloses, reduces steric
hindrance of enzymes and increases cellulose digestibility [61].
Chang and Holtzapple [72] and Silverstein et al. [73] reported that
alkali pretreatment demonstrated minor cellulose and hemi-
celluloses solubilization than acid or hydrothermal process.
Hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid and nitric acid are used as an
acid pretreatment agent [74]. Different studies have been done
using sulfuric acid [35], hydrochloric acid [75], phosphoric acid
[76] and nitric acid [77] for acid pretreatment. Several scientists
have reported that the acid pretreatment enhances the hydrolysis
of hemicelluloses and portion of amorphous cellulose and thus,
increases the recovery of hemicelluloses as monomers in liquid
fraction and digestible cellulose in solid fraction [78,17,63].
8.1.3. Biological pretreatments
Biological pretreatment of rice straw is a safe and environ-
mental friendly process. It has low chemical and energy require-
ment, higher yield of desired product and greater substrate and
reaction specificity [79]. Generally, white-rot fungi belong to
Basidiomycetes class is employed for biological pretreatment [80].
White rot fungi produces lignolytic enzymes such as Manganese
peroxidase (MnP), lignin peroxidase (LiP) and laccase [81,82] and
in the presence of Mn (III) and veratryl alcohol (VA), MnP and LiP
are oxidized by H2O2 respectively, the oxidized form of these
enzymes causes the oxidation of lignin. Laccase catalyzes the
oxidation of phenolic compounds of lignin in the presence of
lignin-oxidizers such as 2,20 -azinobis-(3)-ethylbenzylthiazoline-6-
sulfonate (ABTS) and 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid (HA) or laccase-
oxidizing precursors such as O2 [83]. Several researchers have
reported that white rot fungi such as Phanerochaete chrysosporium,
Ceriporiopsis subvermispora, Phlebia subserialis and Pleurotus
ostreatus can competently remove lignin [79,84]. Dichomitus
squalens used in biological pretreatment of rice straw increases the
enzymatic digestibility of lignocelluloses and promote cellulose
hydrolysis [85].
8.1.4. Combined pretreatments
It includes combination of different pretreatment processes
such as physico-chemical, thermo-chemical, combination of che-
mical and biological process etc. The pretreatment of rice straw by
alkali assisted photo catalysis efficiently changed the physical and
microstructure of rice straw, decreases the lignin content and thus,
increases the hydrolysis rate [86]. The combination of microwave
and chemical pretreatment process has been investigated by var-
ious scientists and found it an effective and efficient pretreatment
technique [57,87]. A combination of steam explosion and superfine
grinding of rice straw is studied by Jin and Chen [88] and found
that this combined pretreatment could shorten the grinding time,
save the energy cost, avoid the inhibitors and enhanced the
enzymatic hydrolysis. The dilute acid in combination with steam
explosions had a higher xylose yield, small amount of inhibitors in
the hydrolysate and a higher rate of enzymatic hydrolysis [89].
The characteristic of some pretreatment methods has been
shown in Table 8. The physical processes are highly energy
intensive and hence, are not economically feasible. The acid pre-
treatments are reported to be toxic, hazardous and corrosive and
require expensive reactors resistant to corrosion. It also generates
difficulties in waste management streams [63]. Banerjee et al. [90]
reported that high energy requirement and generation of inhibi-
tors are the major drawback of the steam explosion method. The
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216 209

Rice Cultivation Harvesting Collection of rice straw

Drying Transportation Storage centre

Utilized by Rice plant during the

process of photosynthesis

Bioethanol refinery

Biological Combined

Physical Chemical

Pretreatment of rice straw

Lignin
Cellulose Hemicellulose

Enzymatic saccharification Waste management

Emission
of CO 2
during the
process
5 and 6 Carbon sugars Electricity

Fermentation

Distillation and Purification

Bioethanol Production

Blending with gasoline and used as a fuel in vehicles

Fig. 2. Bioethanol production from rice straw.

alkaline pretreatment is very effective for herbaceous crops and
agricultural residues [91]. Biological pretreatment methods are
environment friendly but, the process is very slow and also the
cost of enzymes is very high which ultimately affects the final
production costs. Therefore, it can be concluded that no pre-
treatment is complete in itself, every pretreatment have some
advantages and weakness and a combination of different pre-
treatments is economically and environmentally sustainable.
8.2. Enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of rice straw for
bioethanol production
After pretreatment of rice straw, the enzymatic saccharification
or hydrolysis is executed which involves the cleaving of polymers
of cellulose and hemicelluloses with the help of enzymes and then
the sugar released during hydrolysis is converted into the ethanol
through fermentation. The ethanol production depends on per-
centage of sugar recovery, type of simple sugar (pentose or hex-
ose) and production of inhibitors [92]. The hydrolysis of cellulose
gives rise to glucose while the hemicellulose releases several
pentose and hexose [93]. Different factors such as composition of
substrate, type of pretreatment technique, dosage and efficiency of
enzymes used for hydrolysis affect the enzymatic saccharification.
Cellulose crystallinity and degree of polymerization are important
factors for determining the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis [72].
Hemicellulose contents also influence the enzymatic hydrolysis as
the removal of hemicelluloses content increases the mean pore
size of the substrate which in turn amplifies the enzymatic
accessibility and thus, enhances the hydrolysis rate [94]. The rice
straw pretreated with sodium sulfite–formaldehyde improved
enzymatic saccharification and the highest sugar yields of 79.0%,
88.8% and 71.1% for total sugar, glucan and xylan, respectively were
210 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216

Table 8 E15 and E85 was 11.91 km/l, 11 km/l and 8.29 km/l respectively
Characteristics of some pretreatment methods. [108]. In case bio-ethanol is imported, it is transported from the
landing port to the blending point and then to the retail pump
Pretreatment Yield of fer- Inhibitors Need for Wastes Investment
process mentable chemical outlet. In India, till now ethanol is primarily produced by sugar-
sugars recycling cane molasses mainly in three states Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra
and Tamil Nadu and at the same point of blending, the costs of
Mechanical 3 þ5 þ5 þ4 þ2
procuring ethanol from each of these three states vary widely. The
Steam þ2 5 þ4 þ1 3
explosion average transportation cost per liter of ethanol is Rs. 3.5 per liter,
Ammonia fiber þ3 þ4 4 þ1 4 based on chemical industry inputs [109].
explosion
(AFEX)
Carbonic acid þ5 þ5 þ5 þ4 þ2
Dilute acid þ5 3 5 4 2
10. Energy consumption and GHG emission from bioethanol
Concentrated þ5 4 5 4 1 processing
acid
Alkaline þ4 þ2 5 4 þ4 Life cycle assessment (LCA) examines the environmental aspects
extraction
and potential impacts throughout a products life, from acquirement of
Wet oxidation þ1 þ2 þ5 þ2 þ2
Organosolv þ4 þ4 5 þ2 5 the raw material through production, use and disposal [110]. Gen-
erally, Life cycle assessment of biofuels includes the feedstock growth
þ ¼ Positive sign indicates high yield of sugars, low inhibitor, low waste formation, at farming level, conversion of feedstock into biofuels and use of fuel
low need for recycling of chemicals, low investment cost.
for transportation. Carbon dioxide is the main GHG gas and the CO2
 ¼ Negative sign indicates low yield of sugars, high amount of inhibitors, high
residue formation, need for recycling of chemicals. emitted during the process is absorbed by the agricultural crops, but,
there is emission of nitrous oxide which is a GHG gas. The reduction of
obtained at an enzyme loading of 40 FPU/g-substrate, 12% sodium GHG emissions depends on the greenhouse gases emitted in the
sulfite at 160 °C [95]. Yao et al. [96] studied the sulfur trioxide whole chain, which may be substantial in relation to the emissions at
collaborative dilutes alkali method in which first sulfur trioxide final use. Life cycle of green house gas emission of bioenergy depends
gas diffused into the internal structure and reacted with the water on land use changes, feedstock types, agricultural practices and
inside the straw producing the internal micro-thermal explosion, refining and conversion processes [111]. Limited study has been done
then dilute alkali solution was used to remove the lignin and it on the life cycle of bioethanol obtained from rice straw [112,54].
resulted the saccharification rate to 91% based on the pretreated Kunimitsu and Ueda [113] studied the environmental effects of rice
rice straw with sulfur trioxide for 4 h following 1% w/v NaOH straw and as per their study the available amount of bioethanol pro-
treatment for 7 h at 50 °C. The microwave assisted chemical pre- duction (QBE) is calculated by
treatment of rice straw enhances the enzymatic saccharification by Q Rice ¼ SRR:UR:CR:Q Rice ð4Þ
eradicating lignin, hemicelluloses [97–99]. Sulbaran-de-Ferrer
where,
et al. [100] evaluated that there is increase in percentage of
QRice ¼ Annual production of unpolished rice (ton/year)
monomeric sugars in ammonia treated rice straw samples (61%) as
SRR ¼ Dry weight ratio of rice straw to unpolished rice
compared to untreated rice straw (11%).
produced
Rice straw is converted into ethanol either by Simultaneous
UR ¼Ratio of usable rice straw currently burnt in the field
saccharification and fermentation (SSF) or by Separate enzymatic
against total rice straw produced
hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF). Abedinifar et al. [101] reported
CR ¼Conversion rate
the SHF process of rice straw by M. indicus, R. oryzae and S. cere-
For evaluation of economic and environmental impacts of
visiae. SSF is better than SHF process because the SSF process can
bioethanol production system, life-cycle costs (LCC), life-cycle
eradicate the end product inhibition of saccharification process
production (LCP and LCY) and life-cycle GHG emissions (LCE) are
and also, it reduces the processing time, thus enhances the ethanol
measured. LCC includes all costs incurred for bioethanol produc-
yield [102,103]. Major drawback of SSF process is different opti-
tion from the construction phase to the scrapping phase.
mum temperatures of hydrolysis and fermentation. The optimum
temperature of Yeast for fermentation and of hydrolyzing enzymes ΣtC t Prod þ C t Labor þ C t Capital C t Scrap
LCC ¼ Cinv þ þ ð5Þ
is around 30–35 °C and 50 °C respectively [104]. The yeast Sac- ð1 þr Þt ð1 þ r ÞT
chamyces cerevisiae and the bacterium Zymomonas mobilis are the Where,
well known microorganisms for ethanol production [105] and C ¼ Total cost
offer high ethanol yields (90–97% of theoretical). Jorgensen [106] Ct ¼ Annual cost in year, t
obtained ethanol yield of 99% using native S.cerevisiae strain. After Inv¼Initial construction phase
enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation, ethanol is distilled and Prod¼Production phase with regard to intermediate input
dehydrated for obtaining 99.5% of purity. Lignin, unreacted car- Labor ¼Production phase with regard to labor costs
bohydrates and other organics undergoes combustion in a boiler Capital ¼Production phase with regard to capital costs
for production of process steam and electricity. Scrap¼Production phase with regard to scrapping phase
r ¼ Discount rate to evaluate the present value of future costs
LCP and LCY are the total induced production and the total
9. Bioethanol distribution and its end use induced added value during the life cycle of the plant respectively.
ΣtSXtProd þ SXtLabor þ SXtSurplus  SXtSubsidy
Bioethanol produced is transported from plant to the regional LCP ¼ SXinv þ
ð1 þ rÞt
storage center and then distributed to retail fueling station. It is
blend with the gasoline and use in the vehicles. Generally, a diesel SXScrap
þ ð6Þ
truck is used for transportation. Wojnar [107] assumed the total ð1 þ rÞt
roundtrip transportation distance for ethanol distribution is
160 km. The average fuel economy in the cars running with Petrol, LCY ¼ Yinv
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216 211

1106.34–1144.94 kg/l respectively. They estimated the CO2 emis-

sion were 1144.94 kg/l, 1106.34 kg/l and 1106.34 kg/l in three dif-
ferent scenarios S1 (base case), S2 (Innovative case) and S3
(Futuristic case) respectively and concluded that a slight variation
is due to the difference in transportation distance, SSF and dis-
tillation process. The enzyme production followed by the distilla-
tion is mainly contributed to CO2 emission and the use of residues
for heat generation is majorly offsetting a part of the emission of
the production process (Fig. 3) [114]. The study revealed that there
is an environmental benefit by utilizing rice straw based ethanol
as compared to the gasoline (CO2 emission 1690 kg/m3 ethanol
equivalent in Japan).
Roy et al. [115] evaluated the net energy consumption and CO2
emission from two different rice varieties (Koshihikari and Leafstar)
during bioethanol production. The net energy consumption was esti-
mated to be 10.0 and 17.6 MJ/land the CO2 emission was measured to
Fig. 3. CO2 emission for different scenarios from the different stages of rice straw
be  0.48 to 0.93 and 0.47 to 1.58 kg/l for Leafstar and Koshihikari,
based bioethanol [114]. respectively. They concluded that an environmental benefit can be
achieved relative to gasoline (1.69 kg/L-ethanol equivalent). Silaler-
truksa and Gheewala [116] examined the LCA of rice straw used for
(1) direct combustion for generation of electricity (2) biochemical
Table 9 conversion to bio-ethanol and biogas (3) thermo-chemical conversion
Distribution of methane emission from rice paddy field in some major states of to bio-DME and (4) incorporation into the soil as fertilizer to compare
India [118].
their environmental performances. They reported that the bio-ethanol
pathway resulted in the highest environmental sustainability with
S. no. States CH4 Emission (Tg/Y)
regards to reductions in global warming and resource depletion
1 West Bengal 0.59 ± 0.17
2 Bihar 0.57 ± 0.17 potentials. In all three rice straw-to-bioenergy systems, rice straw
3 Madhya 0.53 ± 0.16 cultivation was found to be the major contributor to the GHG emis-
Pradesh sions, sharing about 64–88% of the total GHG emissions. A comparison
4 Uttar Pradesh 0.52 ± 0.15 between the green house gas emissions from a rice straw based
5 Orissa 0.42 ± 0.12 thermal power plant (10 MWe) and a rice straw based bioethanol
6 Andhra Pradesh 0.35 ± 0.10 plant (24 million liter) in which almost same quantity of rice straw is
7 Assam 0.28 ± 0.08 utilized showed that lower amount of GHG is emitted from bioethanol
8 Tamil Nadu 0.21 ± 0.06 plant. The net GHG savings of ethanol options would be  505 kg
9 Punjab 0.20 ± 0.06 CO2-eq/t straw db compared to  448 kg CO2-eq/t straw db for elec-
10 Maharashtra 0.13 ± 0.04
tricity option. A lower net GHG emission for bioethanol plant is due to
11 Karnataka 0.08 ± 0.02
the production of electricity by the burning of unused residues and
12 Haryana 0.07 ± 0.02
13 Others 0.05 ± 0.01 biogas generation as a byproduct during the process [117].
14 Gujarat 0.05 ± 0.01 Methane emission from the flooded rice fields was the major
15 Kerala 0.02 ± 0.01 contributor to the GHG emissions sharing around 80% of the total
16 Rajasthan 0.01 ± 0.00 GHG emissions from the cultivation stage. Emission of methane
17 Jammu & 0.00 ± 0.00 from rice field in major states of India has shown in Table 9 [118].
Kashmir Snyder and Slaton [119] also reported that the methane (CH4) is
18 Himachal 0.00 ± 0.00 emitted mainly from the flooded rice culture. CH4 emissions from
Pradesh rice cultivation have increased 6% between 1990 and 2005 (from
Total 4.09 ± 1.19 670 to 710 MtCO2e) and it is projected that CH4 emissions will
increase 4% from 2005 to 2030 (710–739 MtCO2e) [120]. Paddy
fields were the highest producers of greenhouse gases in the
ΣtYtProd þ YtLabour þ YtCapital þ YtSurplus  YtSubsidy
þ agricultural sector, accounting for 57.7% of total gases [121].
ð1 þ r Þt
Greenhouse gases that are generated from paddy field activity
YScrap include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The carbon
þ ð7Þ
ð1 þ r ÞT dioxide is released from rice photosynthesis and respiration, from
the soil microbes and due to the loss of soil organic carbon.
The total GHG emissions during the life cycle of the plant (LCE)
Methane is the most prevalent greenhouse gas emission in the
is given by
agricultural sector, because it absorbs infrared rays more easily
LCE ¼ GHGinv þ Σt ðGHGtProd þ GHGtLabour þ GHGtSurplus than carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide is emitted due to the decom-
GHGtSubsidyÞ þ GHGScrap ð8Þ position of nitrogen fertilizers during denitrification process
caused by flooding. Larger quantity of GHG is emitted in produc-
Bioethanol from rice straw is a carbon neutral fuel, as the tion phase of life cycle as compared to construction and scraping
amount of green house gases emitted during the process is phases due to the chemical industry sectors which produce
absorbed by the plants. For estimation of net energy consumption numerous inputs that used in the annual operation phase and they
and CO2 emission of the process, the energy and CO2 consumed have higher GHG emission coefficients than the plant construction
and released from each stage is measured. Roy et al. [114] studied and scraping phases [112]. Luo et al. [122] reported that enzyme
the environmental life cycle of bioethanol produced from enzy- production involves a substantial amount of fossil or combustion
matic hydrolysis of rice straw and reported that the net energy electricity for air compression that leads to the emission of CO2.
consumption and CO2 emission was 10.43–11.56 GJ/m3 and Although, there is emission of some GHG gases during the process
212 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216
Negative Features
High transportation cost
High pretreatment cost Ethanol
productio
Emission of nitrous oxide
due to decomposition of n from
nitrogenous fertilizers rice straw
Methane emission
from rice fields
Use of petrol/diesel for
transportation and other
purposes
Fig. 4. Impact of bioethanol production from rice straw.
of bioethanol production, but it is less as compared to gasoline and
major portion of carbon dioxide emitted is utilized by rice plants.
By employing better nitrogen fertilizer application at the farm, the
nitrous oxide emission can be minimized. Reuse of wastes, lignin
and unreacted carbohydrate for electricity and steam generation
makes the process sustainable. If ethanol production enhances,
then, instead of coal and petroleum, it can be utilized as energy
feedstock for rice straw transportation, pretreatment methods,
enzyme production etc. and thus, construct the whole process
more environmentally sustainable. Farmers earn extra income by
selling the straw for ethanol plants and thereby raise the economic
status of rural people. The bioethanol production from rice straw
has both positive and negative impacts on the environment but its
positive impacts overshadowed its negative features (Fig. 4).
11. Bioethanol usage and its present status in India
Bioethanol has high octane number, high heat of vaporization
and low cetane number; all these qualities make it a suitable fuel
for blending with gasoline. Bioethanol is used as an oxygenative
additive as it contains 35% oxygen which reduces emission of
particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen. It is blended with
gasoline in different ratios and most popular blend for light light-
duty vehicles is E85 that contains 85% bioethanol and 15% gaso-
line. In Brazil, bioethanol is used in pure form or blended with
gasoline in a mixture called gasohol (24% bioethanol, 76% gasoline)
[123]. In United States, 10% of bioethanol (by volume) is added to
gasoline known as gasohol or E10. Several other countries have
also exercised bioethanol–gasoline blending program such as
Positive Features
Solution to energy security
Lower GHG emission
Utilization of waste
products
Measure to prevent
burning of rice straw
Prevent air pollution
Provides solution for
disposal of rice straw
Employment and income
generation
Reduction in infant mortality
rate and death rate
Provides electricity
supply in rural areas
Canada (E10 and for FFV E85), Sweden (E5 and for FFV E85), India
(E5), Australia (E10), Thailand (E10), China (E10), Columbia (E10),
Peru (E10), Paraguay (E7) [124]. In different countries, a number of
ethanol related programs are going on (Table 10) [125,126].
India comes at sixth position in context of energy demand and
contributes 3.6% of the world's energy demand [127] and in next
few years, it will increase by 4.8% annually [128]. India depends on
conventional fuels (Petrol, diesel, natural gas) and crude oil
imports to fulfill its energy demands. The country's crude oil
imports have risen from 57.8 million tons in 1999–2000 to 140.4
million tons in 2009–10 which accounts for about 81% of the total
oil consumption [129]. India's dependency on foreign countries for
crude oil exerts pressure on foreign exchange resources (import
bill of $75.6 billion in 2009–10). So, there is a need to expose some
other alternative source of energy that can effortlessly displace
fossil fuels and minimize the country's oil imports. Bioethanol is
an appropriate substitute for conventional fuels and in 2003; India
commenced an Ethanol petrol blending policy (EBPP) in order to
prop up ethanol utilization. In 2004–05, due to shortage of etha-
nol, the blending mandate was made optional but, during the
second phase of ethanol petrol blending policy (EBPP), 10% ethanol
blending had made compulsory. These changes in policy continue
up to December 2009 until the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy (MNRE) proposed a comprehensive National Policy on
Biofuels. The policy demands the blending of at least 20% biofuels
with diesel and petrol by 2017. The given mandatory ethanol
blending requirements will be met in different phases i.e. 5%, 10%
and 20% blending mandates. At the rate of 10% ethanol blending, it
is assumed that about 3.46 billion liters bioethanol will be needed
by 2020 (Fig. 5) [129]. In India, bioethanol is majorly obtained from
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216 213

Table 10
Ethanol related program in some countries [125,126].

Country Feedstock Percentage of ethanol in gasoline Remarks

blends, % (v/v)

Brazil Sugarcane 24 ProAlcool program; Hydrous ethanol is also used as fuel instead of gasoline.
USA Corn 10 Oxygenation of gasoline is mandatory in diertiest cities; tax incentives; some states have
banned MTBE; 85% blends are also available.
Canada Corn, wheat, barley 7.5–10 Tax incentives; provincial programs aimed to meet Kyoto Protocol.
Colombia Sugarcane 10 Began in November 2005; total tax exemption
Spain wheat, barley – Ethanol is used for ETBE production; direct gasoline blending is possible.
France Sugarbeet, wheat, corn – Ethanol is used for ETBE production; direct gasoline blending is possible.
Sweden Wheat 5 85% blends are also available; there is no ETBE production.
China Corn, wheat – Trial use of fuel ethanol in central and north eastern regions.
India Sugarcane 5 Ethanol blends are mandatory in 9 states.
Thailand Cassava, sugarcane, rice 10 All gasoline station in Bangkok must sell ethanol blends; Ethanol blends will be mandatory
from 2007.

Fig. 5. Future demand of petrol and ethanol [129].

Table 11
Availability and utilization of ethanol (highest available alcohol from molasses) in India [130].

Year Highest Ethanol utilization (billion litres) Balance Ethanol Deficit/

available (billion required Surplus
alcohol litres) for blend-
from molas- ing (billion
sess (billion litres)
litres) @10%
Potable Industry

2010–11 2.3 0.86 0.82 0.62 1.53  0.96

2011–12 2.3 0.89 0.84 0.57 1.64  1.14
2012–13 2.3 0.91 0.87 0.52 1.70  1.32
2013–14 2.3 0.94 0.90 0.46 2.02  1.53
2014–15 2.3 0.97 0.94 0.39 2.13  1.76
2015–16 2.3 1.00 0.97 0.33 2.23  1.99
2016–17 2.3 1.03 1.00 0.27 2.34  2.24
2017–18 2.3 1.06 1.04 0.2 2.46  2.51
2018–19 2.3 1.09 1.07 0.14 2.58  2.78
2019–20 2.3 1.12 1.11 0.07 2.71  3.09
2020–21 2.3 1.16 1.15  0.01 2.85  3.42

sugarcane molasses and it is not possible to meet the blending
targets by generating ethanol only from sugarcane molasses due to
its cyclical nature of production and its other competing uses such
as in pharmaceutical and food industry (Table 11) [130]. So, there
is an urge to generate bioethanol from some other sources such as
lignocellulosic biomass. Moreover, high rates of taxes and excise
duties rendering the blending program at commercial scale. So, to
overcome this hurdle National Biofuel policy proposed that except
for a concessional duty of 16% on bioethanol, no other central taxes
and duties are levied on bioethanol. The form of taxation is dif-
ferent in major ethanol producing states of India and is depicted in
Table 12 [129]. The conversion of rice straw into bioethanol is a
good alternative and it is an eco-friendly and sustainable process
that will help the country in fulfilling the blending targets.
214 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216

Table 12 References
Tax structure on ethanol in different states of India [129].

[1] Robertson GP, Richard R. Harwood encyclopedia of biodiversity (2nd ed.);

States/UTs Levies Applicable rate
2013. p.111–18.
[2] Thomas AL. Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agri-
Uttar Pradesh Purchase tax Rs 800/kl culture. Trends Biotechnol 2002;20(5):193–6.
Export fee Rs 1000/kl [3] UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development)
Import fee Rs 1500/kl Agenda 21- An action plan for the next century. Endorsed at the United
License fee Rs 150/kl Nations Conference on Environment and Development. New York; 1992.
Denaturation fee Rs 150/kl [4] Van Loon GW, Patil SG, Hugar LB. Agricultural sustainability: strategies for
Gujarat, Daman Diu Sales tax 4% assessment. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd; 2005.
and Dadra Nagar Import pass Rs 1500/kl [5] Rigby D, Woodhouse P, Young T, Burton M. Constructing a farm level indi-
Haveli Import fee Rs 3000/kl cator of sustainable practice. Ecol Econ 2001;39:463–78.
License fee Rs 25000/annum per location for [6] Tiwari DN, Loof R, Paudyal GN. Environmental–economic decision making in
100 kl ethanol per month, Rs 0.15 lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques. Agric
million per annum per location for Syst 1999;60(2):99–112.
500 kl ethanol per month; Rs 0.3 mil- [7] Van Calker K, Berentsen P, Giesen G, Huirne R. Identifying and ranking
lion per annum per location for above attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric Hum
500 kl ethanol per month Values 2005;22:53–63.
Maharashtra Sales tax 4% [8] Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, Brouckaert V, Franchois L, Cidad VG,
Hermy M, Mathijs E, Muys B, Reijnders J, Sauvenier X, Valckx J, Vanclooster
Export fee Rs 1500/kl
M, Van der Veken B, Wauters E, Peeters A. SAFE- a hierarchical framework for
Import fee Rs 1500/kl
assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ
State excise Rs 300/kl
2007;120(2–4):229–42.
Admin fee
[9] Allen P, van Dusen D, Lundy J, Gliessman S. Integrating social, environmental
License fee Rs 25000 per annum per location and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. Am J Altern Agric 1991;6:34–9.
Tamil Nadu Sales tax (VAT) 8% þ 5% surcharge on sales tax [10] Giampietro M, Bukkens SGF. Sustainable development: scientific and ethical
Import fee Rs 1000/kl assessments. J Agric Environ Ethics 1992:27–57.
Export fee Rs 3000/kl [11] Dunlap RE, Beus CE, Howell RE, Waud J. What is sustainable agriculture. An
State excise Rs 1000/kl empirical examination of faculty and farmer definitions. J Sustain Agric
Admin fee 1992;3:5–39.
License fee Rs 25000 per annum per location [12] de Kuijer O, Linsen H, Quist J. New perspectives: sustainable technological
development in agriculture. Stud Environ Sci 1998;72:733–53.
[13] Hahn-Hagerdal B, Karhumaa K, Fonseca C, Spencer-Martins I, Gorwa-
12. Conclusion Grauslund M. Towards industrial pentose-fermenting yeast strains. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2007;74:937–53.
[14] Raju SS, Parappurathu S, Chand R, Joshi PK, Kumar P, Msangi S. Biofuels in
In nature, every process has some merits and demerits and the India: potential, policy and emerging paradigms. Policy paper. NCAP; 2012.
process that causes less harmful impacts on human beings and [15] Bell JL, Attfield PV. Breakthrough in yeast for making bio-ethanol from lig-
nocellulosic. Sydney, NSW2109, Australia: Microbiogen Pty LTD., Mac quarie
environment is preferred. Review of the literature revealed that University Campus; 2006.
open burning of rice straw emits major green house gases such as [16] Sun Y, Cheng J. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol produc-
CO2, CH4 and N2O that leads to the global warming. Rice is the tion: a review. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:1–11.
[17] Sassner P, Martensson C, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Steam pretreatment of H2SO4-
major food crop of India and rice plantation is done for the pur- impregnated Salix for the production of bioethanol. Bioresour Technol
pose of food and not for the fuel and so, the CH4 emission is 2008;99:137–45.
[18] Demirbas A. Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas
already associated with it. Using residual rice straw for bioethanol
emissions in Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 2003;44:201–13.
production is a sustainable way of waste utilization. Major causes [19] Singh R, Shukla A, Tiwari S, Srivastava M. A review on delignification of
of GHG emissions are straw transportation, uses of chemicals and lignocellulosic biomass for enhancement of ethanol production potential.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:713–28.
enzymes, by-product combustion and ethanol fuel combustion [20] Sun RC. Cereal straw as a resource for sustainable biomaterials and biofuels.
and GHG savings is due to electricity generation, averting rice Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Elsevier Publications; 2010.
straw burning and avoidance of fossil fuel combustion. Therefore, [21] Park J, Kanda E, Fukushima A, Motobayashi K, Nagata K, Kondo M, Oshita Y,
Morita S, Tokuyasu K. Contents of various sources of glucose and fructose in
although, there is an emission of GHG gases during the conversion rice straw, a potential feedstock for ethanol production in Japan. Biomass
of rice straw into bioethanol, but, it is very low as compared to the Bioenergy 2011;35:3733–5.
fossil fuels and due to this, it is better than fossil fuels. Moreover, [22] 〈http://www.foa.org〉; 2012.
[23] Kadam KL, Forrest LH, Jacobson WA. Rice straw as a lignocellulosic resource:
the production of rice results in the carbon sequestration into the collection, processing, transportation, and environmental aspects. Biomass
ground. It offers environmental benefits relative to non renewable Bioenergy 2001;18:369–89.
[24] Robinson P. University of California Davis, personal communication; 2006.
energy consumption and global warming impact. Bioethanol is a
[25] Sukumaran RK, Surender VJ, Sindhu R, Binod P, Janu KU, Sajna KV, Kuni
clean, renewable and sustainable fuel but, its production at com- Rajasree P, Pandey A. Lignocellulosic ethanol in India: Prospects, challenges
mercial scale is a major challenge. There is a need to enhance and feedstock availability. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:4826–33.
[26] Emtenan M, Hanafi HHE, Khadrawy WM, Ahmed MM. Some observations on
better nitrogen utilization at the farm. More research work should rice straw with emphasis on updates of its management. World Appl Sci J
be done on improving ethanol yield so that it can replace the need 2012;16(3):354–61.
of coal and petrol as the energy feedstock in ethanol plants. Uti- [27] UNEP. Converting waste agricultural biomass into energy source. Osaka,
Japan: division of Technology, Industry and Economics; 2009.
lization of rice straw for bioethanol not only provides solution for [28] Gadde B, Menke C, Wassmann R. Rice straw as a renewable energy source in
its disposal but, also enhances the socioeconomic status of rural India, Thailand, and the Philippines: Overall potential and limitations for
people. energy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass Bioenergy
2009;33(11):1532–46.
[29] Silaertruksa T, Gheewala SH. Environmental sustainability assessment of
bioethanol production in Thailand. Energy J 2009;34(11):1933–46.
Acknowledgment [30] Papong S, Malakul P. Life-cycle energy and environmental analysis of bioe-
thanol production from cassava in Thailand. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:112–8.
The authors are grateful to Science and Engineering Research [31] Ou XM, Zhang XL, Chang SY, Guo QF. Energy consumption and GHG emis-
Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of sions of six biofuel pathways by LCA in People's Republic of China. Appl
Energy 2009;86:197–208.
India (Grant No: SR/LS-27/2010), for providing funds during the [32] Fukushima Y, Chen SP. A decision support tool for modifications in crop
course of the study. cultivation method based on life cycle assessment: a case study on
 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216
greenhouse gas emission reduction in Taiwanese sugarcane cultivation. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 2009;14(7):639–55.
[33] Ueda T. Feasibility study on producing domestic biofuels from agricultural
biomass in Japan. Tech Rep Natl Inst Rural Eng 2011;211:131–51.
[34] Hsu TC, Guo GL, Chen W, Hwang WS. Effect of acid pretreatment of rice
straw on structural properties and enzymatic hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:4907–13.
[35] Kim S, Dale BE. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for
producing biofuels: bioethanol and bodies. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:426–39.
[36] Sheehan J, Aden A, Paustian K, Killian K, Walsh M, Nelson R. Energy and
environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol
2003;7:117–46.
[37] Diwakar CM. Rice in India during 10th plan. Directorate of rice development.
Patna; 2009.
[38] Sarnklong JWC, Pellikaan W, Hendriks WH. Utilization of rice straw and
different treatments to improve its feed value for ruminants: a review.
Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 2010;23(5):680–92.
[39] Vision. 2030. Central Rice Research Institute. Indian Council of Agricultural
Research; 2011.
[40] Gadde B. Personal communication. Data on rice straw availability in India
under National Biomass Resource Assessment Program 14 The Joint Gradu-
ate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) Bangkok; 2007.
[41] drd.dacnet.nic.in/Status%20Paper%20-%2002.htm.
[42] Shen H, Sh Ni, DB, Sundstol F. Studies on untreated and urea-treated rice
straw from three cultivation seasons: a. Physical and chemical measure-
ments in straw and straw fractions. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1998;73:243–61.
[43] Garrote G, Dominguez H, Parajo JC. Autohydrolysis of corncob: study of non-
isothermal operation for xylo-oligosaccharide production. J Food Eng
2002;52:211–8.
[44] Saha BC. Hemicellulose bioconversion. Ind Microbiol Biotechnol
2003;30:279–91.
[45] Hessien MM, Rashad MM, Zaky RR, Abdel-Aal EA, El-Barawy KA. Controlling
the synthesis conditions for silica nanosphere from semi-burned rice straw.
Mater Sci Eng B-Adv 2009;162(1):14–21.
[46] Jenkins BM, Baxter LL, Miles Jr TR, Miles TR. Combustion properties of bio-
mass. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:17–46.
[47] Atanu B, Badal CS, John WL, Shogren RL, Willett JL. Process for obtaining
cellulose acetate from agricultural by-products. Carbohydr Polym
2006;64:134–7.
[48] Wiiiam JO, Justin S, Syed HI, Gregory MG, Mara EG, Jean FR. Application of
cellulose microfibrils in polymer nanocomposites. J Polym Environ
2005;13:301–6.
[49] Xu Z, Wang QH, Jiang Z, Yang XX, Ji YZ. Enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated
soybean straw. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:162–7.
[50] Huang HI, Ramaswamy S, AlDajani W, Tschirner U, Cairncross RA. Effect of
biomass species and plant size on cellulosic ethanol: a comparative process
and economic analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:234–46.
[51] Gadde B, Bonnet S, Menke C, Garivait S. Air pollutant emissions from rice
straw open field burning in India, Thailand and the Philippines. Environ
Pollut 2009:1554–8.
[52] Kim S, Dale BE. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops
and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;26(4):361–75.
[53] METI (Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry), Japan. The Demonstration
Project for an Area System of Ecofuel Utilization; 2008. 〈www.meti.go.jp/
committee/materials2/downloadfiles%20/g81002b03j.pdf〉.
[54] Koga N, Tajima R. Assessing energy efficiencies and greenhouse gas emis-
sions under bioethanol-oriented paddy rice production in northern Japan. J
Environ Manag 2011;92:967–73.
[55] Samra JS, Singh B, Kumar K. Managing crop residues in the rice-wheat sys-
tem of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. 173-195. In J.K. Ladha et al. (ed.) Improving
the productivity and poration and immobilization of spring-applied nitro-
gen. Soil Use sustainability of rice-wheat systems: Issues and impact. ASA
Spec.Manage. Pub. 65. ASA, Madison, Wis; 2003.
[56] 〈http://lab.cgpl.iisc.ernet.in〉.
[57] Zhu S, Wu Y, Yu Z, Liao J, Zhang Y. Pretreatment by microwave/alkali of rice
straw and its enzymatic hydrolysis. Process Biochem 2005;40:3082–6.
[58] Chittibabu S, Ravoof SA, Pratheepa K, Supassri T. Enhancing enzymatic
hydrolysis of rice straw using microwave assisted nitric acid pretreatment.
Int J Med Biosci 2012;1(3):13–7.
[59] Himmel ME, Ding SY, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW, Foust
TD. Biomass recalcitrance engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels
production. Science 2007;315:804–7.
[60] Karimi K, Emtiazi G, Tahcrzadeh MJ. Ethanol production from dilute acid
pretreated rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
with Mucor indicus, Rhizopus oryzae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Enzyme
Microb Technol 2006;40:138–44.
[61] Mosier N, Wyman CE, Dale BE, Elander RT, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch MR.
Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of ligno-cellulosic bio-
mass. Bioresour Technol 2005;96:673–86.
[62] Kumar P, Barrett DM, Delwiche MJ, Stroeve P. Methods for pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production.
Ind Chem Eng Res 2009;48(8):3713–29.
[63] Yang B, Wyman CE. Pretreatment: the key to unlocking low-cost cellulosic
ethanol. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2008;2:26–40.
[64] Hendriks A, Zeeman G. Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lig-
nocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:10–8.
215
[65] Jorgensen H, Kristensen JB, Felby C. Enzymatic conversion of lignocellulose
into fermentable sugars: challenges and opportunities. Biofuels Bioprod
Biorefin 2007;1:119–34.
[66] Mood SH, Golfeshan AH, Tabatabaei M, Jouzani GS, Najafi GA, Gholami M,
Ardjmand M. Lignocellulosic biomass to bioethanol, a comprehensive review
with a focus on pretreatment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:77–93.
[67] Xiong J, Ye J, Liang WZ, Fan PM. Influence of microwave on the ultra structure
of cellulose. J South China Univ Technol 2000;28(3):84–9.
[68] Azuma J, Tanaka F, Koshijima T. Enhancement of enzymatic susceptibility of
lignocellulosic wastes by microwave irradiation. J Ferment Technol
1984;62:377–84.
[69] Hideno A, Inoue H, Tsukahara K, Fujimoto S, Minowa T, Inoue S, Endo T,
Sawayama S. Wet disk milling pretreatment without sulfuric acid for enzy-
matic hydrolysis of rice straw. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(10):2706–11.
[70] Behera S, Arora R, Nandhagopal N, Kumar S. Importance of chemical pre-
treatment for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;36:91–106.
[71] Taherzadeh M, Karimi K. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve
ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int J Mol Sci 2008;9:1621–51.
[72] Chang VS, Holtzapple MT. Fundamental factors affecting biomass enzymatic
reactivity. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2000;84–86:5–37.
[73] Silverstein RA, Chen Y, Sharma-Shivappa RR, Boyette MD, Osborne J. A
comparison of chemical pretreatment methods for improving saccharifica-
tion of cotton stalks. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:3000–11.
[74] Mosier N, Hendrickson R, Ho N, Sedlak M, Ladisch MR. Optimization of pH
controlled liquid hot water pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresour Technol
2005;96:1986–93.
[75] Marcotullio G, Krisanti E, Giuntoli J, de Jong W. Selective production of
hemicellulose-derived carbohydrates from wheat straw using dilute HCl or
FeCl3 solutions under mild conditions. X-ray and thermo-gravimetric ana-
lysis of the solid residues. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:1851–7.
[76] Geddes CC, Peterson JJ, Roslander C, Zacchi G, Mullinnix MT, Shanmugam KT,
Ingram LO. Optimizing the saccharification of sugar cane bagasse using
dilute phosphoric acid followed by fungal cellulases. Bioresour Technol
2010;101(6):1851–7.
[77] Zhang R, Lu X, Sun Y, Wang X, Zhang S. Modeling and optimization of dilute
nitric acid hydrolysis on corn stover. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2011;86:306–14.
[78] Linde M, Jakobsson E, Galbe M, Zachhi G. Steam pretreatment of dilute
H2SO4-impregnated wheat straw and SSF with low yeast and enzyme
loadings for bioethanol production. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:326–32.
[79] Kirk TK, Chang HM. Potential applications of bio-lignolytic systems. Enzyme
Microb Technol 1981;3:189–96.
[80] Taniguchi M, Suzuki H, Watanabe D, Sakai K, Hoshino K, Tanaka T. Evaluation
of pretreatment with Pleurutus ostreatus for enzymatic hydrolysis of rice
straw. J Biosci Bioeng 2005;100:637–43.
[81] Tien M, Kirk TK. Lignin degrading enzyme from the hymenomycete pha-
nerocete chryososporium Burds. Science 1983;221:661–3.
[82] Perie FH, Gold MH. Manganese recognition of manganese peroxidase
expesstion and lignin degradation by the white rot fungus Dichomitus
squalens. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991;57(8):2240–5.
[83] Kirk TK, Farrell RL. Enzymatic combustion: the microbial degradation of
lignin. Annu Rev Microbiol 1987;41:465–501.
[84] Keller F, Hamilton J, Nguyen Q. Microbial pretreatment of biomass. Appl
Biochem Biotechnol 2003;105–108:27–41.
[85] Bak JS, Kim MD, In-G Choi, Kim KH. Biological pretreatment of rice by fer-
menting with Dichomitus squalens. New Biotechnol 2010;27(4):424–34.
[86] Kun N, Peng C, Xu Z, Wen-Song T. Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of rice
straw pretreated by alkali assisted with photocatalysis technology. J Chem
Technol Biotechnol 2009;84:1240–5.
[87] Curreli N, Agelli M, Pisu B, Rescigno A, Sanjust E, Rinaldi A. Complete and
efficient enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated wheat straw. Process Biochem
2002;37:937–41.
[88] Jin SY, Chen HZ. Superfine grinding of steam-exploded rice straw and its
enzymatic hydrolysis. Biochem Eng J 2006;30(3):225–30.
[89] Chen WS, Yu HP, Liu YX, Chen P, Zhang MX, Hai YF. Individualization of
cellulose nanofibers from wood using high-intensity ultrasonication com-
bined with chemical pretreatments. Carbohydr Polym 2011;83(4):1804–11.
[90] Banerjee S, Mudliar S, Sen R, Giri B, Satpute D, Chakrabarti T, et al. Com-
mercializing lignocellulosic bioethanol: technology bottlenecks and possible
remedies. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2010;4:77–93.
[91] Rabelo SC, Maciel Filho R, Costa AC. Lime pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse
for bioethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2009;153(1–3):139–50.
[92] Singh R, Shukla A, Tiwari S, Srivastava M. A review on delignification of
lignocellulosic biomass for enhancement of ethanol production potential.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32(713):28.
[93] Taheradeh MJ, Niklasson C. Ethanol from lignocellulosic materials: pre-
treatment, acid and enzymatic hydrolyses and fermentation. In: Saha BC,
Hayashi K, editors. Lignocellulosic biodegradation. Washington DC: Amer-
ican Chemical Society; 2004.
[94] Chandra RP, Bura R, Mabee WE, Berlin A, Pan X, Saddler JN. Substrate pre-
treatment: the key to effective enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosics. Adv
Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2007;108:67–93.
[95] Gu F, Wang W, Jing L, Jin Y. Sulfite-formaldehyde pretreatment on rice straw
for the improvement of enzymatic saccharification. Bioresour Technol
2013;142:218–24.
216 R. Singh et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 202–216
[96] Yao RS, Hu HJ, Deng SS, Wang H, Zhu HX. Structure and saccharification of
rice straw pretreated with sulfur trioxide micro-thermal explosion colla-
borative dilute alkali. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(10):6340–3.
[97] Singh R, Tiwari S, Srivastava M, Shukla A. Performance study of combined
microwave and acid pretreatment method for enhancing enzymatic digest-
ibility of rice straw for bioethanol production. Plant Knowl J 2013;2(4):157–
62.
[98] Singh R, Tiwari S, Srivastava M, Shukla A. Microwave assisted alkali pre-
treatment of rice straw. J Energy 2014.
[99] Singh R, Tiwari S, Srivastava M, Shukla A. Experimental study on the per-
formance of microwave assisted Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) pretreatment of
rice straw. Agric Eng Int: CIGR J 2014;16(1):173–81.
[100] Sulbaran-de-Ferrer B, Aristiguieta M, Dale BE, Ferrer A, Ojeda-de-Rodriguez
G. Enzymatic hydrolysis of ammonia treated rice straw. Appl Biochem Bio-
technol 2003;105:155–64.
[101] Abedinifar S, Karimi K, Khanahmadi M, Taherzadeh MJ. Ethanol production
by Mucor indicus and Rhizopus oryzae from rice straw by separate hydrolysis
and fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:828–33.
[102] Alfani F, Gallifuoco A, Saporosi A, Spera A, Cantarella M. Comparison of SHF
and SSF processes for the bioconversion of steam-exploded wheat straw. J
Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2000;25:184–92.
[103] Sarkar N, Ghosh SK, Bannerjee S, Aikat K. Bioethanol production from agri-
cultural wastes: an overview. Renew Energy 2012;37:19–27.
[104] Kadar Zs, Szengyel Zs, Reczey K. Simultaneous saccharification and fermen-
tation (SSF) of industrial wastes for the production of ethanol. Ind Crop Prod
2004;20(1):103–10.
[105] Claassen PAM, Lopez Contreras AM, Sijtsma L, Weusthuis RA, Van Lier JB, Van
Niel EWJ, Stams AJM, De Vries SS. Utilization of biomass for the supply of
energy carriers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1999;52:741–55.
[106] Jorgensen H. Effect of nutrients on fermentation of pretreated wheat straw at
very high dry matter content by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Biochem
Biotechnol 2009;153:44–57.
[107] Wojnar Z. Renewable fuels roadmap and sustainable biomass feedstock
supply for New York. NYSERDA Report 10-05; 2010.
[108] Gonzalez-Garcia S, Gasol CM, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J, Moreira MT, Feijoo G.
Environmental profile of ethanol from poplar biomass as transport fuel in
Southern Europe. Renew Energy 2010;35(5):1014–23.
[109] Ray S, Goldar A, Miglani S. Ethanol blending policy: Issues related to pricing.
ICRIER Policy Series; 2011. 10.
[110] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040. Environmental
management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework; 2006.
[111] Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high
diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006;314:1598–600.
[112] Orikasa T, Tokuyasu K, Inoue T, Kojima K, Roy P, Nakamura N, Shiina T. Effect
of ethanol conversion efficiency on cost, CO2 emission and energy balance in
the bioethanol production system from rice straw. J Jpn Soc Agri Mach
2009;71:45–53.
[113] Kunimitsu Y, Ueda T. Economic and environmental effects of rice-straw
bioethanol production in Vietnam Paddy. Water Environ 2013;11:411–21.
[114] Roy P, Tokuyasu K, Orikasa T, Nakamura N, Shiina T. A techno-economic and
environmental evaluation of the life cycle of bioethanol produced from rice
straw by RT-CaCCO process. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;37:188–95.
[115] Roy P, Orikasa T, Ken T, Nakamura N, Shiina T. Evaluation of the life cycle of
bioethanol produced from rice straws. Bioresour Technol 2012;110:239–44.
[116] Silaertruksa T, Gheewala SH. A comparative LCA of rice straw utilization for
fuels and fertilizer in Thailand. Bioresour Technol 2013;150:412–9.
[117] Delivand MK, Barz M, Gheewala SH, Sajjakulnukit B. Environmental and
socio-economic feasibility assessment of rice straw conversion to power and
ethanol in Thailand. J Clean Prod 2012;37:29–41.
[118] www.gio.nies.go.
[119] Snyder CS, Slaton NA. Rice production in the United States-an overview.
Better Crop 2001;85(3):3–7.
[120] USEPA. Biofuels and the environment: first triennial report to congress. EPA/
600/R-10/183F. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington DC; 2011.
[121] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto protocol
[Online]. Available from:〈http://unfccc.int〉 March 2011.
[122] Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G, Udo de Haes HA. Allocation issues in LCA
methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2009;14:529–39.
[123] Dias de Oliveira ME, Vaughan BE, Rykiel Jr EJ. Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon
dioxide balances and ecological footprint. BioScience 2005;55(7):593–602.
[124] Kadiman OK. Crops: beyond foods. In: Proceedings of the 1st international
conference of crop security, Malang, Indonesia; 20–23 September 2005.
[125] Murray D. Ethanol's potential: looking beyond corn. Eco- Economy Updates.
Earth Policy Institute; 2005 〈http://earth-policy.org/ Updates/2005/
Update49.htm〉.
[126] Berg C. World fuel ethanol. Analysis and Outlook; 2004. 〈http:// www.distill.
com/World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html〉 (November 2006).
[127] Prasad S, Singh A, Jain N, Joshi HC. Ethanol production from sweet sorghum syrup
for utilization as automotive fuel in India. Energ Fuel 2007;21(4):2415–20.
[128] Gonsalves JH. An Assessment if the biofuels industry in India. In: Proceedings
of United Nations Conference on Trade and Conference. UNCTAD/DIT/TED/
2006/6 Geneva, Switzerland; 2006.
[129] MoPNG. Indian petroleum and natural gas statistics 2007–08. New Delhi:
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; 2009.
[130] Planning Commission, Government of India, Report of the Committee on
Development of Biofuel; 2003. 〈http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/
genrep/cmtt_bio.pdf〉.