1. Introduction
Waste or used cooking oil (WCO/UCO) is a common source of trans fat consumed by Indians, leading to many non-communicable diseases like diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, stroke, cancer, etc. [1]. Although many medical practitioners have cautioned about the harmful effects of WCO, its usage has been found to be increasing, mainly due to the volatile pricing of imported cooking oil in India. It was found out that nearly 60% of the national oil consumption is met by importing WCO, and it is priced dubiously, influencing consumers to reuse the oil repeatedly [2]. However, this WCO could be used to efficiently and effectively replace feedstock in a biodiesel plant. WCO as a feedstock offers the twin advantages of breaking the food supply chain that is causing harmful diseases and providing a cheaper alternative to the growing demands of fossil fuels. Also, using WCO as a feedstock helps to reduce the production cost of biodiesel [3]. Various other benefits like lower dependence on fossil fuels, improved environmental quality, and an additional source of income for small food vendors are also reported by many researchers while using WCO as a feedstock for biodiesel production [4,5,6]. Many nations are setting a target of meeting their 10 to 20% transportation fuel needs through the use of WCO-based biodiesel to their advantage [7]. The Indian government is also intending to collect 5% of its edible oil consumption as a feedstock for biodiesel production, according to its recent biofuel policy [8,9].
Circular Economy—An Incentive to Use WCO as a Feedstock
Even with all these advantages, the collection of WCO comes with many problems, and as a result, many countries have developed their own regulatory and incentive-based collection mechanisms. In general, there are two types of WCO collection mechanisms: 1. biodiesel enterprise takeback (BET), and 2. third-party takeback (TPT). Most of the successful WCO recovery countries, like the United States of America and Japan, follow the TPT mechanism, and other countries like China, Brazil, etc., follow the BET mechanism with some modifications to suit their specific conditions [3]. India, too, developed a unique circular economy model (Figure 1) for WCO collection from different sources. India consumes the third largest amount of edible vegetable oil (over 24,660 ML per annum) in the world. Of that total, 40% of the oil is consumed by commercial food and beverage operators (FBO) and the remaining 60% by domestic households. Although the huge potential of over 15% of the oil consumption is there for biodiesel production, due to the lack of an effective supply chain and enforced collection mechanism, only 0.133% of the WCO is collected. This vast gap forced the various stakeholders of the Indian government to formulate and release a determined biofuel policy in the year 2018. In addition, the Goods and Services Tax imposed on biodiesel was reduced from 12% to 5% to increase the use of WCO as a feedstock [10].
Recent research on pricing WCO-based biodiesel also encourages the move to consider WCO as an important feedstock for biodiesel production. It was reported that nearly 60% to 70% of the production cost will be reduced in comparison to the use of vegetable edible or non-edible oils [11,12,13].
2. Suitability of WCO as a Feedstock for Biodiesel Production
In order to overcome the difficulties associated with depleting fossil fuel resources, biodiesel offers an excellent alternative, as it is produced from renewable feedstocks such as vegetable edible oils, WCO, or non-edible vegetable oils like Jatropha, among others. Biodiesel is a mono alkyl ester of long-chain fatty acids produced from renewable feedstocks [4].
2.1. WCO as a Feedstock for Biodiesel Production to Address Social Challenges
Although medical professionals have cautioned that the Indians are consuming 20% more than the world per capita average of edible oils, the increasing trend is likely to continue, and it was found to be 19 kg per annum. This rising demand is met by importing edible oils after spending about 40% of the total agricultural imports bill, making biodiesel production from edible vegetable seeds unethical [14,15]. However, the import of edible oils has been predominant even in recent years (Figure 2). Moreover, the availability of wasteland and water resources for the cultivation of non-edible vegetable feedstocks poses a considerable problem, leaving WCO as the only sustainable option for biodiesel production. Nevertheless, the safe disposal of WCO is an added advantage for using it as a feedstock. Most often, WCO is not disposed of but used until the last drop, leaving the consumers with several health hazards. Especially, WCO in big commercial food establishments is sold to small eateries and used in household applications which amount to nearly 60% of the total edible oil consumption. Due to this, it was evident that consumers contracted many non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and organ failure. Therefore, WCO could be an excellent option for biodiesel production [1].
2.2. WCO as a Feedstock for Biodiesel Production to Address Technological Challenges
Up to 20% of biodiesel blended with diesel does not require engine modifications and results in better emission quality than petrol–diesel engines [11]. Several studies indicate that the use of WCO biodiesel resulted in reduced emission of particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC) [16,17,18,19].
Especially in India, environmentally sustainable fuel is essential for the growing transport sector, whose conventional diesel consumption is predicted to reach 132 MKL, resulting in nearly 3 times the CO2 production [7]. Although the pour point of the biofuel-blended diesel will be increased, researchers have demonstrated that the addition of suitable bioadditives solves this problem [19].
2.3. WCO as a Feedstock in Biodiesel Production to Address Economical Challenges
India’s transport sector requires about 132 MKL of diesel and contributes 6.7% of India’s gross domestic product (GDP), with nearly 81% of the crude demand being met by imports. With the Indian government target of 5% of blending with biodiesel, WCO can be a perfect alternative, with the potential to save 10% of the import costs of INR 10,000 crores (INR 100 billion) [9].
Many recent research findings have contributed to the fact that WCO is an essential feedstock for biodiesel production, especially in isolated rural locations with a shortage of conventional fuel supply facilities. Collection of WCO paves the way for additional income to many collectors involved in the WCO biodiesel supply chain [11,20]. Furthermore, this collection of WCO could very well augment the Indian government’s Biofuel Policy 2018 and National Mission on Edible Oils—Oil Palm 2021 as a suitable alternative in the biodiesel supply chain [15].
Poverty reduction through income generation for a low-skilled population is also reported in many works concerning WCO collection through community collectors [19,20,21,22]. One of the biggest challenges in the WCO biodiesel supply chain is the collection, which is well addressed by recent research on circular economies. Many issues like seasonal variation of feedstock, availability of appropriate volume of feedstock for transportation, and real-time information could be easily solved using this circular economy model (Figure 1) [23].
3. Overview of WCO Collection Mechanisms
A recent study on biofuel feedstock reveals that China, Japan, and Korea use WCO as a major feedstock for biodiesel production [24]. However, in India, WCO is little-used as a feedstock for biodiesel production, with a contribution of 0.133% against the set target of 5% of conventional diesel fuel. Therefore, a country like India must study the best practices of those countries like Brazil, China, Japan, the United States, and Korea pertaining to collection methods [10]. Margarida Ribau Teixeira et al. (2018) [25] reported that out of WCO production from 23 countries, India’s per capita WCO production is abysmally deficient [26].
Several studies indicated that the collection of WCO from usage sectors is the major hindrance in using it as a feedstock in the biodiesel production chain [11,26]. It was reported in recent research that WCO-based biodiesel forms an essential component in meeting the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health), 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), and 13 (Climate action) [27]. In order to obtain a positive image among the nations, many countries have formulated several incentive policies to collect WCO from their food supply chains. A comprehensive SWOC analysis of the initiatives of the different countries for WCO collection is presented as follows (Table 1):
India at present adopts a strategy of education, enforcement, and ecosystem (EEE) for collecting WCO from households and FBOs. Considering the growing urbanisation and younger demographic advantage, this strategy is appropriate. However, the implementation of stricter rules and regulations at the grassroots level by enforcing agencies like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are found to be ineffective [2]. India should adopt an incentive-based approach similar to that of the developed nations mentioned above to increase WCO collection. Initiatives like eat-right campus awards among educational institutions effectively educate the student population about the harmful effects of reusing WCO in the food chain. This rating should be made mandatory for all accreditations of educational institutions [40,41].
The FSSAI should also consider enforcing stricter regulations for FBOs consuming less than 50 litres/day. In addition, they should adopt a health rating for FBOs as an essential prerequisite for licence approval [42]. Various studies have elucidated that the disbursal of incentives to restaurants and households for depositing WCO is highly effective in its collection [43,44,45,46]. Regarding a suitable ecosystem for better WCO collection, it was reported in the research literature that small FBOs, especially roadside food vendors, due to a lack of storage space and inadequate filtering equipment, do not submit their WCO and often drain it into sewer lines [2,46].
However, if suitable incentives had been given to the biodiesel producers instead of the recyclers, WCO collection would have improved [35]. For example, with the participation of biodiesel-producing companies, local FBOs, and local FSSAI officials, Madurai, a city in India, was able to collect 30 tonnes of WCO in the year 2020, out of which nearly 70% was used for biodiesel production [47]. Similar WCO collection models could be extended to all the cities of India. India should also think about providing such incentives to household consumers and FBOs. Based on the above SWOC analysis, the authors of this paper recommend the following model (Figure 3) for enhanced WCO collection.
4. WCO-to-Biodiesel Conversion Technologies
Many conversion technologies are available for turning WCO into biodiesel, like hydrotreating, gasification, pyrolysis, and transesterification [18]. However, Tabatabaei et al. [48] reported that the transesterification technique is the most economical and environment-friendly conversion method for biodiesel production from WCO after comprehensively reviewing all the conversion technologies. Transesterification is the process of fatty acid or vegetable oil reaction in the presence of a monohydric alcohol, catalysts, and heat over a period of time (Figure 4) [49,50,51].
As a competitive conversion technology, the advantages of the transesterification process are presented in (Table 2).
Even with these advantages, several studies reported limitations of the transesterification process for WCO biodiesel conversion due to its high FFA content. Generally, oils having greater than 1% content of FFAs are not suitable for transesterification using basic catalysts. Without pre-treatment, the biodiesel yield will be drastically reduced because of the saponification effect. However, these pre-treatment processes are expensive and time-consuming and need to be replaced with methods using more effective heterogeneous solid bifunctional catalysts [49,63,64,65,66].
Traditionally, homogeneous catalysts such as KOH, NaOH, potassium methoxide, and sodium methoxide are used for biodiesel conversion due to their ability to facilitate the transesterification reaction at relatively very low temperatures and high reaction rates over 4000 times faster than acid catalysts. Even with all these advantages, these homogeneous base catalysts’ transesterification processes are suitable only for oils with less than 1% FFA content, i.e., food-grade oils. WCO conversion to biodiesel using these catalysts requires the reduction of FFAs by several pre-treatment processes. In addition, the biodiesel yield will be low due to high FFA content and impurities in the WCO [67,68].
Recently, researchers demonstrated that using heterogeneous catalysts for biodiesel conversion eliminates the costlier post-reaction washing problems, resulting in better biodiesel yield. Because these heterogeneous catalysts are in a different state (solid), the reacting medium can easily be separated effectively from the post-reaction mixture by filtration and centrifuging. In addition, these separated solid catalysts can be reused, thus making the biodiesel conversion process a more economical one. In addition to this, the quality of biodiesel produced from the solid catalysts is very good due to the lower level of dissolved metals and other elements. However, even with all these advantages, the use of heterogeneous catalysts is limited in industry because of the following issues: severe reaction condition requirements [69], slower reaction rate due to the mass transfer resistance [70], solid base catalysts being suitable only for oils with up to 3% FFA content under mild reaction conditions [71], and heterogeneous acid catalysts requiring higher temperature and more reaction time for converting WCO [72].
Therefore, recent research on biodiesel production techniques has focused on using heterogeneous bifunctional catalysts to accomplish transesterifying triglycerides and esterifying FFAs simultaneously under moderate reaction conditions. These bifunctional catalysts are found to be best suited for biodiesel production from WCO, even with their high FFA content and moisture content (Figure 5 and Figure 6) [73,74,75].
Recently, researchers have also aimed at using a new catalytic system from a biosource incorporated into transition metal oxides, which is biodegradable, environmentally friendly, and renewable, for the conversion of biodiesel from WCO utilising the advantages of heterogeneous bifunctional solid catalysts. The cost of feedstock and prices of catalysts are the significant costs involved in biodiesel production; using catalysts from bioresources which would otherwise go waste will certainly bring down the cost of biodiesel [49,51,64,65,69,70,71,73]. India at present has 32 biodiesel plants across the country, producing over 4000 tonnes per day, which can make use of the country’s rich bioresources as suitable catalysts in the transesterification of triglycerides and esterification of FFAs in WCO, obtaining an economic advantage over the other global biodiesel-producing countries [2,76].
5. Techno-Economic Analysis of WCO Based Biodiesel
One of the chief advantages of WCO biodiesel is its contribution to the circular economy and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The circular economy focuses on adding higher value to the recycling of low-cost bioresidues in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way. This unique advantage attracts many nations to adopt the production of WCO biodiesel. Additionally, the safe disposal and health benefits associated with terminating WCO in the food supply chain motivate countries to adopt WCO biodiesel production. However, many researchers pointed out that the collection and pre-treatment of WCO prior to transesterification involve many environmental issues. Especially, the energy and chemicals used in the pre-treatment process might affect the sustainability of WCO biodiesel production [27,77,78,79,80,81].
Various researchers ascertained that life cycle assessment (LCA) should be carried out to study WCO biodiesel’s impact on socio-economic and environmental concerns. For any product or process to be viable, it is necessary to analyse its full impact on the environment using a knowledge-based decision support system like LCA. The LCA model for a WCO biodiesel often focuses on mass and energy balance parameters. LCA mandatorily includes all the products (mass) and all the work and heat energy required for the transformation of WCO into biodiesel, along with their complete impact on the environment. Such an LCA analysis focuses on the transformation process and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to evaluate the method’s effectiveness in meeting the SDGs prescribed by the United Nations. For its member countries, especially India, which aspires to balance economic growth and environmental impact assessment, these LCA studies on WCO biodiesel are highly useful in finding the best fuel mix of biofuel and fossil fuel [82,83,84,85,86].
Ideally, any techno-economic analysis of a process or product should offer solutions to technical and economic problems to make that particular product or process profitable and sustainable. However, similar assessments performed on WCO biodiesel often lack clarity on the part of environmental emissions, resource starvation, and thermodynamic aspects because of the uncertainties associated with the collection of WCO. Therefore, an exhaustive LCA should focus on energy analysis as well as exergy analysis to arrive at an informed decision on WCO biodiesel production by evaluating different processes from the environmental sustainability perspective [3,87,88,89].
Many studies are available on energy analysis of WCO biodiesel production in India, but an exhaustive energy and exergy analysis covering the entire spectrum of India is the need of the hour. This is more important considering that the collection and production techniques of WCO in India vary drastically compared to other countries. The lack of uniformity in the policy of WCO collection and pricing of biodiesel, lack of conclusive prior data available on energy, and lack of cost analysis of biodiesel production make an LCA study a difficult proposition [3,10,90]. However, with the maturity level of the transesterification process, India can use other countries’ energy and cost analyses without any loss of accuracy. A typical energy and cost analysis of the transesterification process used for WCO biodiesel is presented in Table 3. Various energy indicators [6] are tabulated in Table 4, and the energy equivalent of the same information is shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 [81,91,92]. Figure 8 illustrates the comparison of various energy indicators for India and Iran
6. Discussions
From the above indicators, it was evident that India has vast potential for WCO biodiesel production in an environmentally friendly and competitive manner compared to other countries. Even though these comprehensive energy and cost analyses provide valuable information on the difficulties involved in the biodiesel conversion process, many researchers criticised the lack of sustainability issues and thermodynamic aspects in the analyses. They suggested exergy analysis be carried out regarding the biodiesel conversion process. Exergy analysis is a method for evaluating the efficiency of a system or process by considering the maximum possible work that can be obtained from the system or process. In the case of a biodiesel plant, exergy analysis can be used to assess the plant’s efficiency in converting WCO into biodiesel fuel. This analysis can help identify potential areas for improvement and optimisation in the plant’s design and operation. Some key factors to consider in an exergy analysis of a biodiesel plant include the WCO type and quality, the type of catalyst and reaction conditions used, and the efficiency of the transesterification and purification processes [27,93].
In the biodiesel conversion process, all the thermodynamic losses are quantified, thereby improving the production process’s sustainability. Economic analysis is integrated into this exergy analysis, making it a robust, comprehensive tool for evaluating the biodiesel production process from the environmental sustainability perspective to take all the advantages of meeting the SDGs. With the growing uncertainties due to the war in Ukraine and COVID-19, many countries are taking action, like Poland, which used its rich forest resources increase its share of liquid biofuels in the renewable energy sector from 2.3% to 10.36% from 2007–2019 [27]. Poland also implemented a rigorous law preventing food wastage and encouraging organizations to obtain certifications under the European Union Sustainable Development System. One such organization in south-eastern Poland effectively handles 1000 tons of waste cooking oil every month [94]. India, too, should exploit its colossal consumption of edible oils to aid biofuel production. To the best of our knowledge, this kind of analysis from the Indian perspective has never been used in biodiesel production. Specifically in India, with varying constraints on WCO biodiesel production originating from the collection of WCO, choice of production techniques and catalysts, willingness to accept WCO submissions, and health awareness, such an analysis is clearly required [93,94].
In fact, out of 230 million MT of edible oil consumption, India is currently capable of producing only 3 million MT of biodiesel. Moreover, with the increased emphasis on the circular economy to improve rural employment opportunities, India should adopt a complete exergy analysis of biodiesel production from WCO.
7. Scope for Future Work
7.1. Economical Processing Route for Biofuel Conversion from WCO
The transport sector accounts for 6.7% of India’s gross domestic product (GDP), and diesel alone contributes to 72% of the nation’s fuel consumption. Moreover, only 18% of the demand is met by domestic crude production, leaving the rest to be imported from abroad at fluctuating prices [9]. However, India’s WCO has the potential to contribute to a savings of 10%, i.e., over INR 100 billion, as an import substitute for petroleum products by the year 2024 [7]. In order to take advantage of these lucrative incentives, the biodiesel conversion process needs to be carried out in an economically sustainable way. Numerous LCA studies were available for different countries [95,96,97,98]. However, all these LCA analyses leave out the costs associated with procurement and logistics, as well as the varying location-specific costs like labour, capital, and land costs. However, in a country like India, with its varied economic and educational status, an LCA should be carried out incorporating all these factors.
7.2. Choice of Bioconversion Methodology
Contemporary biofuel researchers have carried out extensive studies on the process intensification techniques used in the biofuel conversion process, like microwave assistance, ultrasonic assistance, supercritical transesterification, catalytic membrane, magnetic fluidization, electrolysis, and hydrodynamic cavitation. Among these techniques, ultrasonic transesterification has been demonstrated to be an effective and efficient bioconversion methodology with a yield of 92%. In addition, this methodology can be an appropriate choice for India, as it can be implemented with coal fly ash as a catalyst [16]. India, despite being in the nascent stage of employing biofuel conversion technology, should carry out a thorough analysis of the same technique to attain economic advantages.
7.3. Role of Nanoparticles in Biofuel Conversion and Performance Characteristics
Much research literature was available regarding the use of metal-based nanocatalysts like zinc oxide, calcium oxide, titanium oxide, magnesium oxide, and zirconium oxide, as well as carbon-based nanocatalysts like K2CO3-supported KL-activated carbon (K2CO3/KLC) and single-walled carbon.
Nanohorn (SWCNH) reported an improved yield of 95–100% [99,100]. The Indian biofuel conversion industry should make use of these nanoparticles in biofuel production to provide cheap and clean energy.
Even though the blending of biodiesel with diesel fuel does not require any engine modifications, blending it with nanoparticles improves the engine performance and emission characteristics. Recently, researchers reported that with the addition of 0.5% of nanoparticles to the 20% biodiesel blended with diesel resulted in an increase of nearly 10% in the brake thermal efficiency and a significant reduction in the unburnt hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions [101,102]. Another encouraging advantage of biofuel blending with conventional diesel can be found in mining truck applications. The blending of 10% biofuel into diesel in mining transport vehicles led to carbon emissions being reduced by 25–45%, nitrogen oxides being reduced by 65–71%, and a soot particle reduction in the range of 7–13% [103]. With the introduction of the electric vehicle policy, India’s demand for minerals is predicted to be very high, leading to more mining activities [104]. India can exploit this advantageous fuel blend for its growing mining applications.
7.4. Role of Statistical Methods and Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Biofuel Conversion and Performance Improvements
The transesterification methodology used for biofuel conversion from WCO as a feedstock depends on several parameters such as type of catalyst, catalyst loading, process time, alcohol-to-oil molar ratio, and mixing intensity. Among these, the alcohol-to-oil molar ratio, catalyst loading, and reaction time are considered to be critical parameters to be optimized for producing better yield. Several studies reported the use of statistical techniques like the response surface methodology (RSM), full factorial design, Taguchi method, Box–Behnken design, and central composite design (CCD). Among these statistical techniques, CCD offers better accuracy (99.83%) than others [52].
However, these conventional statistical techniques leave out the nonlinear relationship between the production parameters, but the success of WCO biofuel conversion depends on collection, consumption, and emission parameters. Various artificial intelligence algorithms like artificial neural networks (ANN), genetic algorithms (GA), random forest regression (RF), fuzzy logic, particle swarm optimization (PSO) and other developed machine learning algorithms have demonstrated superior accuracy in dealing with complex issues associated with WCO biofuel conversion. Among these algorithms, ANN is considered to be effective in dealing with the challenges associated with biodiesel production [52,105,106]. Indian biofuel manufacturers can accelerate their operations with these matured AI techniques to produce high-quality biodiesel.
7.5. Cost Benefits of By-products after Biofuel Conversion
In India at present, only a meagre 0.13% of total edible oil consumption is used as WCO feedstock for biodiesel production. However, there is the potential for this figure to reach at least 10%, amounting to 660 crore litres of biodiesel made using WCO, which could replace imported palm stearin as a primary feedstock for biodiesel production [39]. In addition, the conventional transesterification process gives off 10% of the glycerol as a by-product [107], which could be an excellent financial incentive for a country like India whose food, pharmaceutical, and detergent requirements are always on the rise. Additionally, current research has demonstrated that the production of bioplastics from biofuel conversion plants is another attractive option for country like India [108].
8. Conclusions
A detailed review is presented of WCO collection and conversion technologies. It emphasises the significance of a circular economy using WCO to create biodiesel. Blending 5% biodiesel with diesel will result in saving 10% of import costs for India. The SWOC analysis aids in identifying the future actions required to amend the relevant policies for WCO collection among different countries. The techno-economic analysis reveals the importance of the life cycle assessment of WCO and the role of exergy analysis in comprehending the investigation regarding the suitability and sustainability of WCO. The tecno-economic analysis shows that the cost of producing WCO-based biodiesel is cheaper than that of conventional fuel, and the difference is less than 1% when compared to neighbouring countries.
Conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft preparation, P.R.K. and G.M.; resources, P.R.K., G.M., D.T. and T.S.; language editing T.S. and D.T.; supervision P.R.K.; formal analysis, D.T.; writing—review and editing, P.R.K., G.M. and T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Data available on request.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 3. Recommended WCO collection model based on the SWOC analysis from the information RUCO [10].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/6/qhemQ?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=j7axSKhLIrOw0MKky9Q2QcR6yXI%3D "View Image - Figure 3. Recommended WCO collection model based on the SWOC analysis from the information RUCO [10].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Recommended WCO collection model based on the SWOC analysis from the information RUCO [10].
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Schematic of the transesterification process with bifunctional catalysts.
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Comparison of energy indicators in biodiesel production for India and Iran.
SWOC analysis of different countries’ WCO collection policies.
| Country | Strength | Weakness | Opportunity | Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | Appropriate replacement of high-productivity soybean oil feedstock [ |
Because of the scattered logistics and collection infrastructure, the cost of WCO might be higher than fossil diesel, especially in urban areas [ |
WCO meets only 0.5% of the present energy needs [ |
Potential to be recirculated to the food supply chain [ |
| China | Due to the various incentives to the collectors, illegal WCO recycling is reduced [ |
Many commercial establishments sell their WCO to illegal peddlers for profit [ |
Incentives are given to restaurants using WCO biodiesel for power generation [ |
Smaller establishments often pay the fine and send their WCO to sanitation management [ |
| Japan | Subsidies to the biodiesel producers are provided to reduce production costs [ |
The difference in pricing between different third-party recyclers using different level of technologies prevails |
Biodiesel producers were given tax waivers to increase their profit level [ |
Advanced recycling technologies must be introduced in all the biodiesel plants to sort out the price difference [ |
| United States of America | Biodiesel producers can receive 0.5 USD/gallon, resulting in a nearly 100% WCO recycling rate [ |
Due to the higher incentive than in other countries, strict control is required to stop illegal WCO supply into their biodiesel supply chain [ |
The federal government imposes stricter control measures on restaurants. |
A high degree of administration and control is required. |
| Korea | Command and control measures for households in WCO collection |
Local recyclers often neglect households with a small quantity of WCO produced [ |
Only 18% of the household WCO is collected [ |
Unlike the United States, Korea does not have carbon-saving criteria, even if its transport consumption is about 25%. Therefore, the motivation for WCO in the transport sector is low [ |
| India | Strict rules are enforced for food business operators (FBO) whose daily edible consumption exceeds 50 litres. |
Low-level societal awareness among WCO-producing households and restaurants prevails. |
Only 20% of the potential WCO is collected at present. |
Indifferent policy of allowing the topping of fresh oil to reduce free fatty acid (FFA) levels in restaurants. |
Competitiveness of transesterification process for WCO biodiesel production.
| Competitiveness | Reference |
|---|---|
| Eco-friendly | [ |
| Increased volatility and reduced viscosity, molecular weight, flash point, and pour point | [ |
| Requires no engine modification | [ |
| Better biodegradability, combustion efficiency, and lubricity; higher cetane number; and lower sulphur and aromatic content compared to conventional diesel | [ |
| Lower hydrocarbon, particulate matter, and unburnt carbon emissions | [ |
| Lower stress on the environment and food security | [ |
| Low-cost feedstock with higher yield | [ |
| Wide choice of catalysts for better yield | [ |
| Suitable for catalytic hydrotreating to improve the storage stability | [ |
Quantities inputs and outputs for producing one litre of biodiesel.
| Head | Unit | Amount per Litre of Biodiesel | * Energy Equivalent (MJ/L) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| India [ |
Iran [ |
Pakistan [ |
India |
Iran |
||
| Inputs |
||||||
| Input energy | 35.114 | 36.652 | ||||
| Outputs |
||||||
| Output energy | 51.65 | 46.76 | ||||
| Cost of biodiesel per litre in USD | 0.634 | 0.611 | 0. 660 | |||
* Energy equivalent data is not available in [
Energy indicators comparison of India and Iran.
| Energy Indicator | India [ |
Iran [ |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Use Efficiency | 1.47 | 1.28 |
| Energy Productivity | 1.06 | 0.87 |
| Net Energy | 16.54 | 10.11 |
| Energy Intensiveness | 55.38 | 59.99 |
| Yield | 26.08 | 16.55 |
References
1. Thirunavukkarasu, S. “A Study on Street Vendors Usage, Consumption, and Awareness of Reused Cooking Oils in Tamil Nadu,” The Public Newsense October–December 2021 Project Report of the Supporting the Implementation of National Trans Fat Regulations in the State of Tamil Nadu (Phase I). Available online: https://www.cag.org.in/newsletters/public-newsense/study-street-vendors-usage-consumption-and-awareness-reused-cooking (accessed on 1 September 2022).
2. Goveas, N.; Kurian, O.C.; Mukhopadhyay, M.A.; Niharika,
3. Gaur, A.; Mishra, S.; Chowdhury, S.; Baredar, P.; Verma, P. A review on factor affecting biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: An Indian perspective. Mater. Today Proc.; 2021; 46, pp. 5594-5600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.432]
4. Sahar,
5. de Araújo, C.D.M.; de Andrade, C.; de Souza e Silva, E.; Dupas, F.A. Biodiesel production from used cooking oil: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2013; 27, pp. 445-452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.014]
6. Mohammadshirazi, A. Energy and cost analyses of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2014; 33, pp. 44-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.067]
7. United States Department of Agriculture, Ankit Sharma “Biofuels Annual”, Global Agricultural Information Network. 2021; Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Biofuels%20Annual_New%20Delhi_India_06-07-2021 (accessed on 14 December 2022).
8. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India “Background Note-UCO”. 2021; Available online: https://eatrightindia.gov.in/ruco/file/Background%20Note-UCO.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2022).
9. Government of India, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy “NATIONAL_POLICY_ON_BIOFUELS-2018”. Available online: https://eatrightindia.gov.in/ruco/national-biofuel-policy.php (accessed on 14 December 2022).
10. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India “Guidelines for UCO Collection”. 2021; Available online: https://eatrightindia.gov.in/ruco/guidelines_for_collection.php (accessed on 14 December 2022).
11. Sheinbaum-Pardo, C.; Calderón-Irazoque, A.; Ramírez-Suárez, M. Potential of biodiesel from waste cooking oil in Mexico. Biomass Bioenergy; 2013; 56, pp. 230-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.05.008]
12. Hussain, Z.; Meghavathu, D.; Kumar, R. Glimpses of Dynamic Biodiesel Product Pricing Model. Int. J. Eng. Technol.; 2018; 7, pp. 224-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.5.20051]
13. Math, M.C.; Kumar, S.; Chetty, S.V. Technologies for biodiesel production from used cooking oil—A review. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2010; 14, pp. 339-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.08.001]
14. Balaji, S.J.; Umanath, M.; Arun, G. Welfare gains of inward-looking: An ex-ante assessment of general equilibrium impacts of protectionist tariffs on India’s edible oil imports. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev.; 2021; 34, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2021.00011.2]
15. National Mission on Edible Oils-Oil Palm. Operational Guidelines (2021-22* to 2025-26). Available online: https://nfsm.gov.in/Guidelines/NMEO-OPGUIEDELINES.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2022).
16. Goh, B.H.H.; Chong, C.T.; Ge, Y.; Ong, H.C.; Ng, J.-H.; Tian, B.; Ashokkumar, V.; Lim, S.; Seljak, T.; Józsa, V. Progress in utilisation of waste cooking oil for sustainable biodiesel and biojet fuel production. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2020; 223, 113296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113296]
17. Abed, K.A.; Gad, M.; El Morsi, A.; Sayed, M.; Elyazeed, S.A. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine emissions. Egypt. J. Pet.; 2019; 28, pp. 183-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2019.03.001]
18. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Nizami, A.-S.; Kalogirou, S.A.; Gupta, V.K.; Park, Y.-K.; Fallahi, A.; Sulaiman, A.; Ranjbari, M.; Rahnama, H.; Aghbashlo, M. et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2022; 161, 112411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112411]
19. Eremeeva, A.; Kondrasheva, N.; Nelkenbaum, K. Studying the possibility of improving the properties of environmentally friendly diesel fuels. Scientific and Practical Studies of Raw Material Issues; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 108-113.
20. César, A.D.S.; Werderits, D.E.; Saraiva, G.L.D.O.; Guabiroba, R.C.D.S. The potential of waste cooking oil as supply for the Brazilian biodiesel chain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 72, pp. 246-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.240]
21. Santos, P.S.B.; Villas-Bôas, L.; da Silva Rodrigueiro, M.M.; Lopes, L.; Rodrigues, T.R.; de Amorim, P.D.C.A. Design and development of a low-cost reactor for biodiesel production from waste cooking oil (WCO). Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res.; 2019; 7, pp. 56-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss12.2006]
22. Biofuel Support Policies in Europe: Lessons Learnt for the Long Way Ahead-ScienceDirect. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032108000166 (accessed on 29 November 2022).
23. Bimpizas-Pinis, M.; Calzolari, T.; Genovese, A. Exploring the transition towards circular supply chains through the arcs of integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2022; 250, 108666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108666]
24. Delzeit, R.; Heimann, T.; Schuenemann, F.; Soeder, M. Using Used Cooking Oil (UCO) for biofuel production: Effects on global land use and interlinkages with food and feed production. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis; Warsaw, Poland, 19–21 June 2019.
25. Teixeira, M.R.; Nogueira, R.; Nunes, L.M. Quantitative assessment of the valorisation of used cooking oils in 23 countries. Waste Manag.; 2018; 78, pp. 611-620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.06.039]
26. Rabu, R.A.; Janajreh, I.; Honnery, D. Transesterification of waste cooking oil: Process optimization and conversion rate evaluation. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2013; 65, pp. 764-769. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.02.031]
27. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy product systems: A critical review. E-Prime-Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy; 2021; 1, 100015. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prime.2021.100015]
28. Biodiesel Production in Brazil and Alternative Biomass Feedstocks-ScienceDirect. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032113000142 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
29. Sajjadi, B.; Raman, A.; Arandiyan, H. A comprehensive review on properties of edible and non-edible vegetable oil-based biodiesel: Composition, specifications and prediction models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 63, pp. 62-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.035]
30. Janssen, R.; Rutz, D.D. Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: Risks and opportunities. Energy Policy; 2011; 39, pp. 5717-5725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.047]
31. Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Zhou, P.; Hou, J.; Qiu, Y. Subsidy modes, waste cooking oil and biofuel: Policy effectiveness and sustainable supply chains in China. Energy Policy; 2014; 65, pp. 270-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.009]
32. Liu, T.; Liu, Y.; Wu, S.; Xue, J.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Kang, X. Restaurants’ behaviour, awareness, and willingness to submit waste cooking oil for biofuel production in Beijing. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 204, pp. 636-642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.056]
33. Zhang, H.; Wang, Q.; Mortimer, S.R. Waste cooking oil as an energy resource: Review of Chinese policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2012; 16, pp. 5225-5231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.008]
34. Singhabhandhu, A.; Tezuka, T. Prospective framework for collection and exploitation of waste cooking oil as feedstock for energy conversion. Energy; 2010; 35, pp. 1839-1847. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.01.004]
35. Zhang, H.; Ozturk, U.A.; Zhou, D.; Qiu, Y.; Wu, Q. How to increase the recovery rate for waste cooking oil-to-biofuel conversion: A comparison of recycling modes in China and Japan. Ecol. Indic.; 2015; 51, pp. 146-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.045]
36. Zhang, H.; Ozturk, U.A.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, Z. Biodiesel produced by waste cooking oil: Review of recycling modes in China, the US and Japan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2014; 38, pp. 677-685. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.042]
37. Cho, S.; Kim, J.; Park, H.-C.; Heo, E. Incentives for waste cooking oil collection in South Korea: A contingent valuation approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2015; 99, pp. 63-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.04.003]
38. Kristiana, T.; Baldino, C.; Searle, S. An estimate of current collection and potential collection of used cooking oil from major Asian exporting countries. Work. Pap.; 2022; 21.
39. Shin, J.-Y.; Kim, G.-W.; Zepernick, J.S.; Kang, K.-Y. A Comparative Study on the RFS Program of Korea with the US and UK. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4618 (accessed on 8 December 2022).
40. Ameena, R.N.; Joseph, M. Integrating ‘Eat Right Movement Campaign’ into the school environment. Int. J. Home Sci.; 2020; 6, pp. 332-335.
41. Dhara, D.; Biswas, S.; Das, S.; Biswas, O. Status of food safety and food security in India in the perspective of FSSAI. Indian J. Anim. Health; 2021; 60, pp. 167-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36062/ijah.2021.spl.01821]
42. File, No. RCD-18/1/2021-Regulatory-FSSAI-Part (2). Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Available online: https://fssai.gov.in/upload/advisories/2022/01/61ea5b8d0fc5eDirection_RUCO_21_01_2022.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2022).
43. Salmani, Y.; Mohammadi-Nasrabadi, F.; Esfarjani, F. A mixed-method study of edible oil waste from farm to table in Iran: SWOT analysis. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2022; 24, pp. 111-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01301-9]
44. Kamilah, H.; Yang, T.; Sudesh, K. The Management of Waste Cooking Oil: A Preliminary Survey. Health Environ. J.; 2013; 4, pp. 76-81.
45. Liu, T.; Liu, Y.; Luo, E.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Wu, S. Who is the most effective stakeholder to incent in the waste cooking oil supply chain? A case study of Beijing, China. Energy Ecol. Environ.; 2019; 4, pp. 116-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40974-019-00118-5]
46. Yacob, M.R.; Kabir, I.; Radam, A. Households Willingness to Accept Collection and Recycling of Waste Cooking Oil for Biodiesel Input in Petaling District, Selangor, Malaysia. Procedia Environ. Sci.; 2015; 30, pp. 332-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.10.059]
47. FSSAI ropes in Ananda Oil Corporation to Collect Used Cooking Oil. The Times of India, 23 March 2020. Available online: https://fssai.gov.in/upload/media/FSSAI_News_OilTOI_24_03_2020.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2022).
48. Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Dehhaghi, M.; Panahi, H.K.S.; Mollahosseini, A.; Hosseini, M.; Soufiyan, M.M. Reactor technologies for biodiesel production and processing: A review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.; 2019; 74, pp. 239-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2019.06.001]
49. Mansir, N.; Teo, S.H.; Rashid, U.; Saiman, M.I.; Tan, Y.P.; Alsultan, G.A.; Taufiq-Yap, Y.H. Modified waste egg shell derived bifunctional catalyst for biodiesel production from high FFA waste cooking oil. A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2018; 82, pp. 3645-3655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.098]
50. Shin, H.-Y.; An, S.-H.; Sheikh, R.; Park, Y.; Bae, S.-Y. Transesterification of used vegetable oils with a Cs-doped heteropolyacid catalyst in supercritical methanol. Fuel; 2012; 96, pp. 572-578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.12.076]
51. Yan, S.; Salley, S.; Ng, K.Y.S. Simultaneous transesterification and esterification of unrefined or waste oils over ZnO-La2O3 catalysts. Appl. Catal. Gen.; 2009; 353, pp. 203-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2008.10.053]
52. Aghbashlo, M.; Peng, W.; Tabatabaei, M.; Kalogirou, S.A.; Soltanian, S.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Mahian, O.; Lam, S.S. Machine learning technology in biodiesel research: A review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.; 2021; 85, 100904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2021.100904]
53. lkelawy, M.; Shenawy, E.A.E.; Bastawissi, H.A.E.; Shennawy, I.A.E. The effect of using the WCO biodiesel as an alternative fuel in compression ignition diesel engine on performance and emissions characteristics. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.; 2022; 2299, 012023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2299/1/012023]
54. Demirbas, A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy; 2007; 35, pp. 4661-4670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.04.003]
55. De Oliveira, F.C.; Coelho, S.T. History, evolution, and environmental impact of biodiesel in Brazil: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 75, pp. 168-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.060]
56. Lund, M.T.; Berntsen, T.; Fuglestvedt, J.S. Climate Impacts of Short-Lived Climate Forcers versus CO2 from Biodiesel: A Case of the EU on-Road Sector. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2014; 48, pp. 14445-14454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es505308g] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25405926]
57. Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M.; Khalife, E.; Shojaei, T.R.; Dadak, A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a DI diesel engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel (B5) emulsions containing aqueous nano cerium oxide. Energy; 2018; 149, pp. 967-978. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.082]
58. Ogunkunle, O.; Ahmed, N.A. Overview of Biodiesel Combustion in Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Engine Emissions on the Sustainable Human–Environment Scenario. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 5465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13105465]
59. Andreo-Martínez, P.; Ortiz-Martínez, V.; García-Martínez, N.; de los Ríos, A.; Hernández-Fernández, F.; Quesada-Medina, J. Production of biodiesel under supercritical conditions: State of the art and bibliometric analysis. Appl. Energy; 2020; 264, 114753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114753]
60. Amid, S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M.; Hajiahmad, A.; Najafi, B.; Ghaziaskar, H.S.; Rastegari, H.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Mohammadi, P. Effects of waste-derived ethylene glycol diacetate as a novel oxygenated additive on performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel blends. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2019; 203, 112245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112245]
61. Changmai, B.; Vanlalveni, C.; Ingle, A.P.; Bhagat, R.; Rokhum, S.L. Widely used catalysts in biodiesel production: A review. RSC Adv.; 2020; 10, pp. 41625-41679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D0RA07931F]
62. Bezergianni, S.; Chrysikou, L.P. Oxidative stability of waste cooking oil and white diesel upon storage at room temperature. Bioresour. Technol.; 2012; 126, pp. 341-344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.136]
63. Agarwal, D.; Agarwal, A.K. Performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha oil (preheated and blends) in a direct injection compression ignition engine. Appl. Therm. Eng.; 2007; 27, pp. 2314-2323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.01.009]
64. Farooq, M.; Ramli, A.; Subbarao, D. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil using bifunctional heterogeneous solid catalysts. J. Clean. Prod.; 2013; 59, pp. 131-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.015]
65. Alves, C.T.; Oliveira, A.; Carneiro, S.; Silva, A.; Andrade, H.; de Melo, S.V.; Torres, E. Transesterification of waste frying oil using a zinc aluminate catalyst. Fuel Process. Technol.; 2013; 106, pp. 102-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.07.008]
66. El Sherbiny, S.A.; Refaat, A.; El Sheltawy, S.T. Production of biodiesel using the microwave technique. J. Adv. Res.; 2010; 1, pp. 309-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2010.07.003]
67. Baskar, G.; Aiswarya, R. Trends in catalytic production of biodiesel from various feedstocks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 57, pp. 496-504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.101]
68. Syazwani, O.N.; Rashid, U.; Yap, Y.H.T. Low-cost solid catalyst derived from waste Cyrtopleura costata (Angel Wing Shell) for biodiesel production using microalgae oil. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2015; 101, pp. 749-756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.075]
69. Biodiesel Production Using Cesium Modified Mesoporous Ordered Silica as Heterogeneous Base Catalyst-ScienceDirect. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236112006187 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
70. Transesterification of Oil by Sulfated Zr-Supported Mesoporous Silica. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2011; 50, pp. 7857-7865. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ie1022817 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
71. Tan, Y.H.; Abdullah, M.O.; Nolasco-Hipolito, C.; Taufiq-Yap, Y.H. Waste ostrich- and chicken-eggshells as heterogeneous base catalyst for biodiesel production from used cooking oil: Catalyst characterization and biodiesel yield performance. Appl. Energy; 2015; 160, pp. 58-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.023]
72. Amani, H.; Ahmad, Z.; Asif, M.; Hameed, B.H. Transesterification of waste cooking palm oil by MnZr with supported alumina as a potential heterogeneous catalyst. J. Ind. Eng. Chem.; 2014; 20, pp. 4437-4442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.012]
73. Ibrahim, M.L.; Rashid, T.D.U.; Moser, B.; Taufiq-Yap, Y.H. Appraisal of Biodiesel Prepared Via Acid Catalysis from Palm Fatty Acid Distillate. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Sci.; 2018; 43, pp. 2205-2210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40995-018-0642-5]
74. Sirisomboonchai, S.; Abuduwayiti, M.; Guan, G.; Samart, C.; Abliz, S.; Hao, X.; Kusakabe, K.; Abudula, A. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil using calcined scallop shell as catalyst. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2015; 95, pp. 242-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.044]
75. Wong, Y.C.; Tan, Y.; Taufiq-Yap, Y.; Ramli, I.; Tee, H.S. Biodiesel production via transesterification of palm oil by using CaO–CeO2 mixed oxide catalysts. Fuel; 2015; 162, pp. 288-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.09.012]
76. India: Promoting Advanced Biofuels Through High Technology. Available online: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/54222/54222-001-tar-en.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2022).
77. World Custom Organization. WCO Annual Report 2021–2022; World Custom Organization: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
78. Madadian, E.; Haelssig, J.; Mohebbi, M.; Pegg, M. From biorefinery landfills towards a sustainable circular bioeconomy: A techno-economic and environmental analysis in Atlantic Canada. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 296, 126590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126590]
79. Zhang, C.; Cai, W.; Liu, Z.; Wei, Y.-M.; Guan, D.; Li, Z.; Yan, J.; Gong, P. Five tips for China to realize its co-targets of climate mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Geogr. Sustain.; 2020; 1, pp. 245-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.001]
80. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Li, C.; Chen, X.; Peng, W.; Aghbashlo, M.; Lam, S.S.; Tabatabaei, M. Managing the hazardous waste cooking oil by conversion into bioenergy through the application of waste-derived green catalysts: A review. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2022; 424, 127636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127636] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34740507]
81. Mohan, S.V.; Dahiya, S.; Amulya, K.; Katakojwala, R.; Vanitha, T.K. Can circular bioeconomy be fueled by waste biorefineries —A closer look. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.; 2019; 7, 100277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100277]
82. Ortner, M.E.; Müller, W.; Schneider, I.; Bockreis, A. Environmental assessment of three different utilization paths of waste cooking oil from households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2016; 106, pp. 59-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.007]
83. 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0739-7]
84. Khan, H.M.; Ali, C.H.; Iqbal, T.; Yasin, S.; Sulaiman, M.; Mahmood, H.; Raashid, M.; Pasha, M.; Mu, B.-Z. Current scenario and potential of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil in Pakistan: An overview. Chin. J. Chem. Eng.; 2019; 27, pp. 2238-2250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2018.12.010]
85. Lombardi, L.; Mendecka, B.; Carnevale, E. Comparative life cycle assessment of alternative strategies for energy recovery from used cooking oil. J. Environ. Manag.; 2018; 216, pp. 235-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.016]
86. Sobrino, F.H.; Monroy, C.; Pérez, J.L.H. Biofuels and fossil fuels: Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) optimisation through productive resources maximisation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2011; 15, pp. 2621-2628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.010]
87. Khoshnevisan, B.; Tabatabaei, M.; Tsapekos, P.; Rafiee, S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Lindeneg, S.; Angelidaki, I. Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing municipal solid waste to bioenergy, microbial protein, lactic and succinic acid. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2020; 117, 109493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109493]
88. Rajaeifar, M.A.; Hemayati, S.S.; Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Mahmoudi, S.B. A review on beet sugar industry with a focus on implementation of waste-to-energy strategy for power supply. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2019; 103, pp. 423-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.056]
89. Chamkalani, A.; Zendehboudi, S.; Rezaei, N.; Hawboldt, K. A critical review on life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: Current challenges and future prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2020; 134, 110143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110143]
90. Hussain, Z.; Kumar, R. A Model Framework to Make Biodiesel as Sustainable Alter-Native Fuel: Towards a Dynamic Biodiesel Product Pricing Approach. Proceedings of the 8th World Petrocoal Congress: International Conference and Exhibition; New Delhi, India, 15–17 February 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20214.09288]
91. Yari, N.; Mostafaei, M.; Naderloo, L.; Ardebili, S.M.S. Energy indicators for microwave-assisted biodiesel production from waste fish oil. Energy Sources Part Recovery Util. Environ. Eff.; 2022; 44, pp. 2208-2219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1649324]
92. Naderloo, L.; Javadikia, H.; Mostafaei, M. Modeling the energy ratio and productivity of biodiesel with different reactor dimensions and ultrasonic power using ANFIS. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 70, pp. 56-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.035]
93. Amid, S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M.; Karimi, K.; Nizami, A.-S.; Rehan, M.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Soufiyan, M.M.; Peng, W.; Lam, S.S. Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental aspects of an industrial-scale molasses-based ethanol production plant. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2021; 227, 113637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113637]
94. Recycling of Used Oils-Tarnow and Malopolska. CHEMWAR. Available online: https://www.chemwar.pl/en/home-2/ (accessed on 25 January 2023).
95. Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M.; Soltanian, S.; Ghanavati, H. Biopower and biofertilizer production from organic municipal solid waste: An exergoenvironmental analysis. Renew. Energy; 2019; 143, pp. 64-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.109]
96. Linganiso, E.C.; Tlhaole, B.; Magagula, L.P.; Dziike, S.; Linganiso, L.Z.; Motaung, T.E.; Moloto, N.; Tetana, Z.N. Biodiesel Production from Waste Oils: A South African Outlook. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1983. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14041983]
97. Ruhani, B.; Movahedi, P.; Saadi, S.; Ghasemi, A.; Kheradmand, A.; Dibaj, M.; Akrami, M. Comprehensive Techno-Economic Analysis of a Multi-Feedstock Biorefinery Plant in Oil-Rich Country: A Case Study of Iran. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1017. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14021017]
98. Yaqoob, H.; Teoh, Y.; Sher, F.; Farooq, M.; Jamil, M.; Kausar, Z.; Sabah, N.; Shah, M.; Rehman, H.; Rehman, A. Potential of Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel as Renewable Fuel in Combustion Engines: A Review. Energies; 2021; 14, 2565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14092565]
99. Pandya, H.N.; Parikh, S.; Shah, M. Comprehensive review on application of various nanoparticles for the production of biodiesel. Energy Sources Part Recovery Util. Environ. Eff.; 2022; 44, pp. 1945-1958. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1648599]
100. Pali, H.S.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, M.; Annakodi, V.A.; Nguyen, V.N.; Singh, N.K.; Singh, Y.; Balasubramanian, D.; Deepanraj, B.; Truong, T.H. et al. Enhancement of combustion characteristics of waste cooking oil biodiesel using TiO2 nanofluid blends through RSM. Fuel; 2023; 331, 125681. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125681]
101. Ponnusamy, M.; Ramani, B.; Sathyamruthy, R. A Parametric Study on a Diesel Engine Fuelled Using Waste Cooking Oil Blended with Al2O3 Nanoparticle—Performance, Emission, and Combustion Characteristics. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137195]
102. Eremeeva, A.M.; Ilyashenko, I.S.; Korshunov, G.I. The Possibility of Application of Bioadditives to Diesel Fuel at Mining Enterprises. Personalii.Spmi.Ru. Available online: http://personalii.spmi.ru/ru/details/36105 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
103. Channabasavaiah, H.M.; Naidu, D.G.V. Income and Employment Generation through Mining Industry in India. Mukt Shabd J.; 2021; X, pp. 780-789.
104. Prajapati, N.; Kodgire, P.; Kachhwaha, S.S. Comparison of RSM Based FFD and CCD Methods for Biodiesel Production Using Microwave Technique. Mater. Today Proc.; 2022; 62, pp. 6985-6991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.379]
105. Almohana, A.I.; Almojil, S.F.; Kamal, M.A.; Alali, A.F.; Kamal, M.; Alkhatib, S.E.; Felemban, B.F.; Algarni, M. Theoretical investigation on optimization of biodiesel production using waste cooking oil: Machine learning modeling and experimental validation. Energy Rep.; 2022; 8, pp. 11938-11951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.265]
106. Xing, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Sun, Y.; Alikhani, M.A. A Review on Machine Learning Application in Biodiesel Production Studies. Int. J. Chem. Eng.; 2021; 2021, e2154258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/2154258]
107. Decarpigny, C.; Aljawish, A.; His, C.; Fertin, B.; Bigan, M.; Dhulster, P.; Millares, M.; Froidevaux, R. Bioprocesses for the Biodiesel Production from Waste Oils and Valorization of Glycerol. Energies; 2022; 15, 3381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15093381]
108. da Silva, C.A.; dos Santos, R.N.; Oliveira, G.G.; Ferreira, T.P.D.S.; de Souza, N.L.G.D.; Soares, A.S.; de Melo, J.F.; Colares, C.J.G.; de Souza, U.J.B.; de Araújo-Filho, R.N. et al. Biodiesel and Bioplastic Production from Waste-Cooking-Oil Transesterification: An Environmentally Friendly Approach. Energies; 2022; 15, 1073. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15031073]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; P Rajesh Kanna 2
; Taler, Dawid 3 ; Sobota, Tomasz 3
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Velammal College of Engineering and Technology, Madurai 625009, India
2 CO2 Research and Green Technologies Centre, VIT, Vellore 632014, India
3 Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Energy, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Cracow, Poland