Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Biofuel production from citrus wastes: A feasibility study in Iran MARK

a,⁎ a b c
Ahmad Taghizadeh-Alisaraei , Seyyed Hasan Hosseini , Barat Ghobadian , Ali Motevali
a
Department of Mechanical Biosystems, Gorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 386, Gorgan, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Biosystems, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, P.O. Box 14115-336, Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Mechanics of Biosystem Engineering, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Biomass is a major energy source accounting for 10–14% of the world’s energy supply. Citrus is one of the most
Citrus waste important horticultural products in Iran. Annually, a great amount of wastes are produced due to food
Biofuel processing plants, lack of appropriate conditions for maintenance, and an insufficient citrus processing industry
Digestion in Iran. These wastes are often disposed of in landfills or used as animal feed. Citrus waste (CW) contains
Fermentation
various polymers of soluble and insoluble carbohydrates that are the ideal raw material for conversion into
Iran
biological biofuels such as ethanol and biogas. In 2014, the cultivation area (including non-fertile and fertile
areas) of horticultural products was approximately 2.59 million hectares in Iran. The citrus production in the
same year was 4,320,041.29 t. The highest citrus production is in Mazandaran Province, followed by Fars and
Kerman provinces. Approximately 1,265,975.95 t of this product are processed in the processing industry as a
low-grade product, where citrus fruits create 682,987.97 t of wastes. The results showed that the wastes
produced from citrus have a good potential for biofuel production in Iran. The ethanol and biogas produced
from CW is estimated to be 26.98 million liters and 37.08 million m3, respectively. Iran has also a potential of
producing 93277–179283 t of bio-oil.

1. Introduction
Iran is a developing country located in the southern side of the
Caspian Sea, with an area of 1,648,195 km2 and a population of about
78 million. This country is rich in renewable and non-renewable
natural resources. Iran owns the second largest oil reserves in the
Middle East, after Saudi Arabia. In addition, Iran has the second
largest natural gas reserves in the world [1]. Natural gas and oil
separately comprise half of the energy consumption in Iran. Due to the
reduction of fossil fuel resources, the use of other types of energy
resources, particularly renewable energies, has been very important in
recent years in Iran in order to control and reduce energy consumption
especially by the household and commercial sectors [2,3]. Renewable
energy development is an important part of the global energy policy to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels [4,5]. If
developed in a sustainably, biomass is considered a carbon-neutral
energy source; that is, the GHG emissions, namely CO2, released from
converting biomass to energy are equivalent to the amount of CO2
absorbed by the plants during their growing cycles. Today, oil, coal and
natural gas account for more than 80% of total energy requirements.
About 98% of carbon emissions are from fossil fuel combustion.
Reduction in the use of fossil fuels would significantly decrease the
emissions. This can be achieved by replacing fossil fuels by renewable
fuels. Sustainable sources of renewable energy will play an important
role in the future of global energy [6].
Biomass as one of the major renewable energy sources is estimated
to contribute to 10–14% of the world’s energy supply [7–9] and it
formed 62.1% of the total renewable energy sources in 1995 [9]. There
is a strong interest in liquid biofuels due to the fact that it can be used
as a supplement or alternative to gasoline or diesel fuel derived from
fossil fuels [10]. Due to their higher energy density and easier handling,
the liquid biofuels are more attractive for investment in the world.
There are several ways to process and use biofuels. In fact, all forms of
bioenergy are from biomass such as forest and agricultural plants [11].
In Iran, different agricultural products are produced due to appropriate
climatic conditions that most of them are used for human and animal
consumption, production of concentrates, and as feed for the juice
industry [12]. Iran is one of the top countries in the world in producing
horticultural crops, especially dates, pistachios and citrus. This in-
dicates its great potential for producing ethanol and biodiesel.
According to reports, a major part of the Iranian orchard crops is
wasted (about 25–30%) due to lack of maintenance equipment and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Ahmadtza@yahoo.com (A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei), ho3eini1991@gmail.com (S.H. Hosseini), Ghobadib@modares.ac.ir (B. Ghobadian),
motevali62@gmail.com (A. Motevali).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.102
Received 2 September 2015; Received in revised form 23 September 2016; Accepted 25 September 2016
Available online 12 October 2016
1364-0321/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al.
storage [13,14]. Citrus is one of the most important crops in Iran [14].
Citrus cultivation, particularly oranges, is a major industry and a
significant part of the economy in the USA, Brazil, Mexico, China,
India, Iran and many Mediterranean countries, including Spain and
Greece [15]. The main objective of growing citrus fruits is to make
juice. However, wastes from the citrus industry including peels, seeds
and pulps are a powerful potential source for several purposes [16,17].
Annually, 15–25 million tons of CWs are produced by the food
processing industry [18,19]. Often, these wastes are disposed in
landfills or are used as animal feed in small quantities. Value-added
products from the processing of citrus with the aim of waste mini-
mization can raise the profitability of the citrus industry. One of the
alternative ways of using CWs is production of ethanol via their sugars
and polysaccharides [15]. From USDA data during the marketing year
of 2007/2008, a total amount of 2.3 m3 (65% sugar) orange juice is
produced in main selected countries. The estimated amount of CW
peels may be more than 15 million tons [20]. Many studies have been
conducted on CW processing and applications such as production of
pectin, flavonoids, fibers, and animal feeds. However, a large amount of
these wastes are still discarded every year that cause economic and
environmental problems such as the high transportation costs, lack of
dumping sites, and the accumulation of organic matter contents [21].
CW contains various polymers of soluble and insoluble carbohydrates
that are the ideal raw material for conversion into biofuels such as
ethanol and biogas [19–21]. Bioethanol as an alcohol (with properties
similar to ethanol) is made by microbial fermentation mainly from
carbohydrates, sugar and vegetable starch such as corn, sugar cane,
sweet sorghum or lignocellulosic biomass [25].
Ethanol production from agricultural wastes especially citrus has
been studied by many researchers [22–48]. Widmer et al. investigated
the effect of pretreatment methods on orange processing to produce
ethanol by simultaneous sugar extraction and fermentation. The
ethanol efficiency based on sugar content after simultaneous enzymatic
hydrolysis and fermentation ranged between 76–94% after 48 h.
Ethanol yields slightly lower but not statistically different from the
pre-treatment using the modified base [49]. Zhou et al. developed a
new approach to make ethanol along with improved recovery of D-
limonene from citrus peel waste (CPW). The process consists of four
parts: pretreatment to remove and recover D-limonene, simultaneous
saccharilication and fermentation (SSF) to produce ethanol, distillation
to remove the ethanol, and treatment of the residues for use as cattle
feed or other byproducts. It was showed that, with this method, CW can
be fermented to produce ethanol with D. limonene obtained as a
byproduct [50].
Biogas production from bio-wastes is an alternative source of fuel in
the developing countries [51]. Some researchers studied the technology
and production of biogas using different types of CW, food products
and agricultural wastes [48–71]. Currently, biogas is primarily used for
burning in a combined heat and power unit (CHP) to generate heat and
electricity; upgrading biogas for injection into the petro-gas pipeline;
and conversion of refined biogas to compressed biogas (CBG) or
liquefied biogas (LBG) for a variety of applications [52]. Elaiyaraju
et al. performed anaerobic co-digestion of Jatropha de-oiled cake and
orange peel wastes for biogas production on a batch scale at the
ambient temperature. Results showed that the maximum gas output is
1140 ml at the 1:2 ratio of Jatropha de-oiled cake to orange peel waste
during 17 days. The CH4, CO2, and CO contents were 75%, 16%, and
9%, respectively. The digested slurry can be used as a fertilizer for
agricultural purposes [53]. Koppar and Pullammanappallil used a
leach-bed batch anaerobic digester for bio-gasification of CPW. The
holding time and thermophilic temperature were 25 days and 55 °C in
the digester, respectively. The citrus processing wastewater was
digested in a thermophilic DSFF (downflow stationary fixed-film)
continuous-feeding anaerobic reactor and operated for 76 days [54].
Oil extraction from citrus seeds and peels in order to produce
biodiesel is studied by a number of authors. Rashid et al. produced
1101
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112
biodiesel from Citrus reticulata (mandarin orange) seed oil. The
biodiesel was produced by sodium methoxide-catalyzed transesterifica-
tion of the oil with methanol. The methyl esters (biodiesel) from the
citrus seed oil complied with both ASTM D6751 and EN 14214
biodiesel standards [72]. Bull and Obunwo produced biodiesel from
dried-orange-peel oil as a raw material. The oil was extracted from sun-
dried, ground and powdered orange peels. Transesterification was done
at the temperatures of 80–83 °C, oil to ethanol mole ratio of 1:3, and
using sodium hydroxide as catalyst. The viscosity and density of the
biodiesel were 2.1 cst and 825 kg/m3, respectively [73].
There is a number of research on production of bio-oil from CW by
pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is the thermochemical process in the absence of
oxygen for conversion of biomass into valuable products including
char, liquids and gas. It effectively depends on the temperature, flow
rate of N2, particle size, and holding time [74]. CW pyrolysis has been
carried out in several studies [72–79]. Pyrolysis of sweet orange dried
peels (Citrus sinensis) was studied by Miranda et al. The extracted bio-
oil as one of its compounds is included limonene (main), D-limonene,
alcohols, phenols, benzene, toluene, xylene and carboxylic acids [79].
Aguiar et al. studied the effect of temperature and particle size of
orange peel residues in a fixed bed pyrolyzer. The results showed that
an increase in temperature would reduce the char yield [80].
Other agriculture products have been reviewed and studied exten-
sively to produce biomass (e.g. enhancement of biogas and methaniza-
tion of citrus waste [81], impact of biochar on the anaerobic digestion
of citrus peel waste [82], citrus waste as feedstock for bio-based
products recovery [83], liquid biofuels from food waste [84], bioenergy
from cotton industry wastes [85], agricultural residue resources for
liquid biofuel production [86], biofuels production by means of co-
pyrolysis of Posidonia oceanica (L.) [87], economic evaluation of
technology for a biofuel production using wastes [88], hydrothermal
pretreatment of olive mill for biofuel production [89], waste and
residue availability for advanced biofuel production [90], hydrolysis
treatments of fruit and vegetable waste for production of biofuel
precursors [91], agricultural residue resources for liquid biofuel
production [86], etc.
Current research work was aimed to explore and study the potential
applicability of CWs in production of biomass from processed and fresh
citrus in Iran. The next objective of the present research was to find
optimal ways for conversion of CWs, and encourage investors to invest
in the energy production from CWs in the world. For this reason, fuel
production output from these wastes and cost estimation in terms of
type and quantity was determined. Considering the abundant accumu-
lation of CWs in Iran, this study showed the potential for production of
biofuels as well as different methods of CW fermentation, digestion,
and pyrolysis in Iran.
2. Citrus
2.1. Citrus in the world
Citrus is one of the most abundant crops in the world [92]. Citrus
fruits are cultivated in more than 100 countries around the world,
mainly in tropical and subtropical regions with favorable climatic
conditions and soil [93]. The global citrus fruit production was about
169.4 t in 2013. The most important of them are orange (61% of total),
mandarin (22% of total), lime and lemon (11% of total) and grapefruit
(6% of total). These fruits, in both fresh-consumption market and
processing industry, are commercially valuable. The citrus processing
industry has concentrated for many years on the production of juices
and essential oils; it is estimated that 33% of the citrus harvest in the
world is used juice production [94]. A high percentage of the orange
production (70%) is used for the production of derivative products, and
approximately 50–60% of the processed fruits is converted to citrus
wastes (peels, seeds, and membrane residue) [95]. Table 1 shows the
major countries for cultivation and production of citrus in 2013 [96].
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

Table 1 discarded fruit due to legal limitations. These cases are not allowed to
The major countries for cultivation and citrus production in 2013. enter the food chain and are therefore considered wastes. The amount of
generated wastes depending on the harvest practices is a fraction of the
Country The area under Production Percent share of
cultivation (thousand (thousand tons) world production total fruit. In citrus processing for juice extraction, approximately 500 t of
hectares) wastes per 1000 t of fruits are produced. The percentage of the discarded
fruits due to commercial or regulatory issues is very difficult to calculate,
China 2420 32,819 19.36
but it ranges from 2% to 10% depending on the type of citrus and
Brazil 833 19,735 11.64
USA 325 10,133 5.98 environmental aspects like weather conditions [98].
India 767 10,090 5.95 In 2014, Mazandaran, Fars, and Kerman provinces with total citrus
Mexico 553 7613 4.49 production of 1,914,072.60, 1,117,930.30, and 568,613.7 t were
Spain 319 6367 3.76 ranked first, second, and third in Iran, respectively.
Iran 166 4320 2.55
Fig. 2 shows a schematic of citrus harvesting and processing. Citrus
Egypt 175 4092 2.41
Nigeria 800 3800 2.24 peel is the main part of CWs representing about half of the fruit's mass,
Turkey 104 3681 2.17 and is widely studied due to its large number of biologically active
Argentina 135 2815 1.66 compounds such as natural antioxidants like phenolic acids and
Italy 146 2745 1.62
flavonoids [99,100]. Table 3 shows the percentage of wastes for a few
South Africa 74 2407 1.42
Pakistan 197 2150 1.27 types of citrus in Iran.
Others – 56,658 33.42 According to Table 3, CWs are about 30% of the total citrus fruits.
World 8786 169,425 100 The percentage of different fruit wastes for each province of Iran are
shown in Table 4. According to Table 4, the highest amount of CWs is
in Mazandaran (578,098.59 t), the second is Fars (311,463.59 t), and
2.2. Citrus in Iran the third is Kerman (168,374.6 t).
In Iran, annually 20–30% of total fruit production is converted to
In 2014, the total area of horticultural products (including fertile juice due to lack of storage conditions and processing industries [102].
and non-fertile) was approximately 2.59 million hectares in Iran where Approximately 50% (w/w %) of citrus delivered to processing indus-
85% of it is for irrigation farming and the rest is for dry land farming. tries is turned into pulp or waste in the production line [103].
In the same year, the production of horticultural crops was approxi- Given the 1,265,975.95 t of low quality fruit (Table 4) used in citrus
mately 15.96 million tons, where 92% of it was produced by irrigation processing industries, the citrus wastes can be 632,987.97 t. This
farming. In terms of production of horticultural crops, Fars Province is amount of CWs is a good potential for the production of biofuel.
ranked first with 16.12% of the total production. It is followed by
Mazandaran (14.58%), West Azerbaijan (6.83%), East Azerbaijan
(5.18%), Khorasan Razavi (5.09%), and Kerman (4.97%). These six 4. Production of biofuels from CW
provinces contribute to 52.58% of the country's production of horti-
cultural crops [97]. Biomass can be converted into biofuel through the physical,
Most citrus fruits are consumed freshly, therefore they are directly thermal, chemical and bio-chemical processes showed in Fig. 3.
sent to the market after harvest or are stored. In fact, one of the most Physical processes use compression techniques such as crushing, heat
important industries in the agriculture sector is the fruit juice production. application and pressure to convert biomass into biofuel. Biological and
Major concentrates produced in Iran are exported to European countries, chemical processes employ enzymes and microorganisms to convert
particularly Germany and France [12]. Table 2 shows the citrus produc- biomass into desirable energy products. At the same time, thermal and
tion quantity (tons) in Iran (oranges, tangerines, sour orange, sour lemon, chemical processes use the heat energy and chemical catalysts to
sweet lemon, grapefruit and others) by province. Fig. 1 demonstrates the decompose biomass into energy products with high performance. In
main citrus producing provinces in Iran with their output in tons. direct combustion of biomass, the primary produced thermal energy is
used as an energy source to generate electricity or to operate combined
3. Citrus waste heat and power (CHP) plant. The gasification process of biomass is
used for the production of biofuels such as green gasoline and
Citrus Waste (CW) mainly includes the peel and pulp from the juice electricity. The pyrolysis process is used for the production of bio-oil,
industry, discarded fruit due to commercial reasons (damaged fruit), and chemicals and charcoal, which can be used in CHPs for turbines,

Table 2
Citrus production statistics in Iranian provinces [97].

Province Oranges Tangerines Sour lemon Sweet lemon Grape fruit Sour orange Other Total

Ilam 296.64 90.69 653.09 28.42 8.00 41.07 – 1117.91

Bushehr 4146.00 2212.03 42,876.50 2190.20 102.00 1108.65 – 52,635.38
Kerman 417,600 16,889.1 49,874 9586 70,933.10 2661.5 1070 568,613.7
South Khorasan 310.00 18.00 – 32.00 – 304.00 – 664
Khuzestan 31,479.00 5040.00 5036.00 2435.00 2210.00 30,920.00 939.00 78,059
Sistan and Baluchestan 9301.50 4534.00 10,267.00 3108.20 968.60 412.50 720.00 29,311.80
Fars 335,069.00 115,832.00 196,345.30 430,500.00 7982.00 10,075.00 22,127.00 1,117,930.30
Yazd 12.50 1.80 0.80 1.20 – 291.00 – 307.30
Kermanshah – – – – – – 7030.00 7030.00
Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad 11,760.40 4374.00 15,840.80 1989.40 27.00 132.00 502.00 34,625.60
Golestan 67,679.00 10,454.50 7.00 28.00 – 1180.00 – 79,348.50
Guilan 98,752.10 6087.00 323.20 934.10 325.60 5751.70 72.00 112,245.70
Lorestan – – – – – – 74 74
Mazandaran 1,447,802.00 426,793.00 936.80 8840.80 1186.00 24,022.00 4492.00 1,914,072.60
Hormozgan 122,958.00 57,897.00 105,554.70 26,076.00 3199.00 3578.80 4742.00 324,005.50
Total 2,547,166.14 650,223.12 427,715.19 485,749.32 86,941.3 80,478.22 41,768 4,320,041.29

1102
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

Fig. 1. The main citrus producing provinces in Iran, with output in tons.

Fresh fruit Fruit market

Citrus Heat
warehouses

CHP

20-30% Citrus waste Biogas

Electricity

Fruit garden
Citrus processing Bio-refinery
industry
Citrus waste

Juice
Bioethanol

Fig. 2. View of harvested and processed citrus.

engines and boilers [104].
Biofuels is classified according to four generation of their produc-
tion technology showed in Table 5 [106].
For example, the first-generation biofuels are sugarcane ethanol,
corn starch-based ethanol, biodiesel and pure plant oil. Feedstock for
the production of first-generation biofuels include sugar, starch, seed
oils, animal fats, which in most cases can also be used as foods. Second-
generation biofuels are produced from cellulose, hemicellulose and
lignin such as cellulosic ethanol and the Fischer-Tropsch fuel [107].
Third-generation biofuels are based on photosynthetic microorganisms
such as micro-algae [108]. Fourth-generation biofuels are made of
environmental carbon, which is used in high-tech technologies such as
petroleum-hydro-processing, advanced biochemistry, geosynthesis or
low pressure-temperature electrochemical processes [109].

1103
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

Table 3 drate polymers in CWs and eventually convert them into biogas,
The percentage of CWs [101]. whereas the hydrolysis done by enzymes or chemicals is to change
polymers into sugar. The fermentation of sugars is then required to
Product The percentage of waste
produce ethanol, for example by baker’s yeast [112].
Orange 30
Tangerine 31
Sour lemon 26 4.1. Bio-ethanol production process and potential survey
Sweet lemon 26
Grapefruit –
Other citrus – Ethanol is mainly produced in two major methods, catalytic
hydration of ethylene (synthetic ethanol) and bio-fermentation from
agricultural products like fruits, vegetables and grains [113]. The
CWs mainly contain peels, seeds and membrane parts. Although it general method of producing ethanol is shown in Fig. 4 [114].
is considered a lignocellulosic material, CW contains carbohydrate Various raw materials used in the production of ethanol by fermenta-
solutions, a small amount of protein, fat and peel oils [110]. Chemical tion can be divided into three main types of sugars, starches, and
compounds of different citrus peels used as a potential raw material for cellulosic materials.
bioethanol production are shown in Table 6 [111]. Sugar (from sugar cane, sugar beets, molasses, and fruits) can be
Limonene in CWs is the main obstacle to produce biogas. This converted directly into ethanol by yeasts. Starch (from corn, cassava,
component is detrimental to microorganism digestion, which reduces potatoes, and root crops) is first hydrolyzed and then changed into
the biogas yield. Limonene is a potent inhibitor for microorganisms in fermentable sugars by enzymes. Cellulose (from wood, agricultural
producing ethanol. Therefore, it should be separated from CWs for the residues, sulfite liquor waste from pulp, and paper mills) should be
digestion or fermentation process. generally converted into sugars by mineral acids [115].
It should be noted that digest bacteria can hydrolyze the carbohy- Dried CW contains glucose (8.1%), fructose (12%), sucrose (2.8%),

Table 4
The amount of waste generated in different Iranian provinces in tons.

province Oranges Tangerines Sour lemon Sweet lemon Grape fruit Sour orange Other Total

Ilam 88.99 28.11 169.80 7.38 2.4 12.32 – 309

Bushehr 1243.80 685.72 11,147.89 569.45 30.6 332.59 – 14,010.05
Kerman 125,280 5235.62 12,967.24 2492.36 21,279.93 798.45 321 168,374.6
South Khorasan 93 5.58 – 8.32 – 91.20 – 198.1
Khuzestan 9443.70 1562.40 1309.36 633.1 663 9276 281.7 23,169.26
Sistan and Baluchestan 2790.45 1405.54 2669.42 808.132 290.58 123.75 216 8303.87
Fars 100,520.70 35,907.92 51,049.77 111,930 2394.6 3022.5 6638.10 311,463.59
Yazd 3.75 0.55 0.02 0.31 – 87.30 – 92.128
Kermanshah – – – – – – 2109 2109
Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad 3528.12 1355.94 4118.60 517.24 8.1 39.60 150.60 9718.20
Golestan 20,303.70 3240.89 1.82 7.28 – 354 – 23,907.69
Guilan 29,625.63 1886.97 84.032 242.86 97.68 1725.51 21.6 33,684.28
Lorestan – – – – – – 22.2 22.2
Mazandaran 434,340.60 132,305.83 243.56 2298.60 355.8 7206.6 1347.60 578,098.59
Hormozgan 36,887.40 17,948.07 27,444.22 6779.76 959.7 1073.64 1422.60 92,515.39
Total 764,149.84 201,569.16 111,205.92 126,294.82 26,082.39 24,143.46 12,530.40 1,265,975.95

Fig. 3. Biomass to bioenergy conversion pathways [105].

1104
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

pectin (12.1–25%), protein (6.07–9.1%), cellulose (22–37.1%), hemi- materials of the hydrolyzed CWs, biogas was produced. Basically, one
cellulose (6–11.1%), ash (3.73%), lignin (2.19–8.6%) and limonene ton of wet CW)with 20% dry weight( resulted in 39.64 l of ethanol,
(3.78%), [95,97]. Choi et al. designed a method for fermentation of 45 m3 of methane, and other materials [112].
single-source CPW in combination with other fruit wastes (i.e. banana Two CW bio-refineries are considered for ethanol production.
peel, apple pomace, and pear waste) to produce bioethanol. The rates of Ethanol, bio-methane, limonene, and digestate are produced in the
enzymatic conversion of fruit waste (produced from Avicel and CPW) large bio-refinery design, which is financially appropriate if the supply
to fermentable sugars were approximately 90% for all feedstocks after of CW is over the 200,000 t per year [116]. The small bio-refinery
48 h. The yeast fermentation resulted in ethanol concentrations (14.4– design produces bio-methane, limonene and digestate. This can be
29.5 g/L) and yields (90.2–93.1%) [45]. In another study, choi et al. financially appropriate if the supply of CW is less than 50,000 t per
developed a popping pretreatment for bioethanol production using year. The amount of ethanol and methane generated per ton of CW is
mandarin (Citrus unshiu) peel waste. In this technique, D-limonene shown in Table 7 [117].
concentration (fermentation inhibitor) was reduced from 0.21% to Lignocellulosic consists of three main components, namely cellu-
0.01%. The particle size of popping-pretreated mandarin peel was lose, hemicellulose and lignin. The first two are composed of sugar-
decreased to less than 1 mm. The enzymatic hydrolysis on pretreated chain molecules. This chain can be hydrolyzed to produce glucose
mandarin peel produced a 95.6% saccharification rate. Results showed monomers, some of which can be fermented using common baker’s
that ethanol productivity and yield efficiency were 3.85 g/L h and yeast (Fig. 5).
90.6%, respectively [46]. Pourbafrani et al. produced ethanol, biogas, The main difference in the hydrolysis process is in the hydrolysis of
pectin and limonene from CWs using an integrated process. CWs were hemicellulose and conversion of cellulose into sugar monomers,
hydrolyzed by a dilute-acid process in a pilot plant reactor equipped fermentation and product recovery, and concentration using distilla-
with an explosive drainage. The best sugar yield (0.41 g/g of the total tion which can be performed by dilute acid, concentrated acid or
dry CWs) was obtained by the dilute-acid hydrolysis at 150 °C and enzyme. Some stages of the process are independent of the hydrolysis
6 min holding time. The sugars present in the hydrolyzates were method. For example, enzyme production in the acid hydrolysis
converted to ethanol (yield of 0.43 g/g) by fermentation using baker's process will be eliminated. Similarly, the improvement of acid in the
yeast. By anaerobically digestion of the stillage and the remaining solid enzymatic hydrolysis process is not necessary [118,119].
The simplified process of producing ethanol, methane and
limonene from CWs is shown in Fig. 6. In this technique, CWs are
Table 5 mixed with specific amounts of water and sulfuric acid. Then, the
Classification of biofuels based on their generation technologies [106].
mixture is loaded into the hydrolysis reactor at the pressure of 5 bar
Generation Feedstocks Examples and temperature of 150 °C when exposed to steam. After 6 min of
hydrolysis, the hydrolyzed materials are sent to an expansion tank
First-generation Sugar, starch, vegetable Bioalcohols, vegetable oil, where limonene is evaporated. The hydrolyzed material is then
biofuels oil, or animal fats biodiesel, biosyngas, biogas
Second-generation Non food crops, wheat Bioalcohols, bio-oil, bio-
filtered to separate the solids and sugar for fermentation into
biofuels straw, corn, wood, solid DMF, biohydrogen, bio- ethanol in the reactor (beer). The beer product is distilled, and
waste, energy crop Fischer-Tropsch diesel ethanol is recovered. Solid wastes from the filtration unit and the
Third-generation Algae Vegetable oil, biodiesel rest of the distillation column are mixed and sent to be fed into the
biofuels
anaerobic digester. The produced methane is refined in a pressure
Fourth-generation Vegetable oil, biodiesel Biogasoline
biofuels swing adsorption system. A fraction of the methane is burned in a
boiler to produce steam. The generated steam is used in the
distillation column and hydrolysis reactor [120].

Table 6
Chemical composition (%DM) of different lignocellulosic feedstock [111].

Ash Sugar Fat Protein Pectin Lignin Cellulose Hemicellulose

Mandarin peel 5.0(3.0) 10.1 1.6 7.5 16.0(14.2) 8.6(8.9) 22.5(20.8) 6.0(17.2)
Lemon peel 2.5(4.1) 6.5 1.5 7.0 13.0(9.0) 7.6(8.3) 23.1(22.8) 8.1(22.4)
Orange peel 2.6(3.8) 9.6 4.0 9.1 23.0(12.29) 7.5(8.4) 37.1(22.0) 11.0(19.9)
Grapefruit peel 8.1(3.3) 8.1 0.5 12.5 8.5(16.1) 11.6(8.2) 26.57(19.8) 5.60(18.3)

Fig. 4. General methods for ethanol production.

1105
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al.
According to Table 7, a large bio-refinery (39.5 l of ethanol per ton
of CW), can produce 26,978,024.8 l of ethanol from CW (from
682,987.97 t of CW).
4.2. Bio-gas production process and potential survey
Biogas is a gas mixture originating from the decomposition of
biomass in an anaerobic fermentation process. Landfills, sewage
sludge, animal manure, corn straws, agricultural residues, etc. are the
main sources of biogas production [122]. The general properties of
biogas are shown in Table 8 [123]. Anaerobic digestion (AD) for biogas
production is an effective method for converting organic wastes where
they are decomposed in an oxygen-free environment by anaerobic
microorganisms [94]. The final product of AD includes biogas (60–70%
methane), and the remaining organic matters are rich in nitrogen. This
technology has been successfully implemented in treatment of agri-
cultural wastes, food wastes, and sewage sludge due to its ability to
reduce the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen
demand (BOD) in the wastewater treatment and other renewable
energy pilot.
As a reliable technology, AD is being implemented in Europe and
Asia. AD is used for treatment of more than 10% of the organic wastes
in several European countries. The AD process can be divided into four
1106
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112
stages, as shown in Fig. 7 [124,125].
Yield and quality of biogas vary with the composition and source of
biomass wastes. Fruits and vegetables often have low total solid waste
and high volatile solids, which can easily decompose in AD [126]. Dried
CW contains 74.53%, 7.68%, and 10.80% of carbohydrate, protein, and
fat, respectively. The theoretical methane yield derived from the CWs
can be calculated by the following equation, which is 0.45 N m3/kg VS
[18,112].
CcHhOoNnSs + yH2O → xCH4 + nNH3 + sH2S + (c−x) CO2
In practice, the methane yields of the CWs have been reported to be
0.05–0.33 N m3/kg VS [18,54], which can be explained by the presence
of limonene that disturbs the AD process [18,19]. In a study by Koppar,
bio-gasification methane yields were 116 m3 for 1 t of CPW, and 2.1 m3
for 1000 l of CW water. An energy analysis showed that, in an
industrial unit that processes 600 t of fruit per day, the amount of
biogas generated from the CW is more than the required energy for the
entire electricity and fuel demands [54]. Wikandari et al. reported the
production of methane at 0.33 N m3/kg VS using a membrane bior-
eactor, whereas the traditional cell-free reactor reduced its methane
production to 0.05 N m3/kg VS. They approximately achieved 73% of
the theoretical methane yield [18]. In another research by Forgas, the
methane yield was 0.537 Nm3/kg VS by employing the steam explosion
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al.
treatment at 150 °C for 20 min, which destroyed the compact structure
of the CWs and removed 94% of the D-limonene. The developed process
generated 104 m3 of methane and 8.4 l of limonene per ton of CWs [110].
The amount of methane produced by digestion is between 45 and
116 m3 per ton of wet CWs. Considering the amount of 682,987.97 t of
CWs, the 79 million m3 of methane can be achieved.
4.3. CW pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is one of the main thermochemical conversion methods that
convert biomass into useful products such as liquid (tars, heavier
hydrocarbons, and water), solid char, gaseous products (CO2, H2, O,
CO, C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, C6H6, etc.) [127], and pyrolysis-related com-
pounds. Solid products (char) are applicable as direct fuel such as
charcoal, briquettes, slurries, and char-liquefied due to their high calorific
value, and it has been used as the primary substance for producing
activated carbons [128,129]. Based on operating conditions, pyrolysis is
mostly divided into normal, fast and flash classes. Temperature, rate of
heating, shelf life of solid biomass, particle size, and gas flow rate vary in
these processes. Several types of pyrolyzer are used for biomass pyrolysis
in the world. Some of the major pyrolyzer (reactor) designs in use are
fixed-bed, fluidized-bed, bubbling fluidized-bed, circulating fluidized-bed,
ultra-rapid, rotating cone, ablative, and vacuum [127,130–132]. The two
common types of them are described below.
Fixed-bed pyrolyzer has a reactor with cooling and cleaning
systems. This reactor is suitable for producing fuels with a relatively
uniform size and low amount of char dust. This is a batch-type reactor,
and solids in contact with the gas flow (without oxygen) moved upward
to form the gaseous product. Fixed-bed reactor is typically made of
firebrick, steel or concrete with fuel feeding, dust removal unit and gas
exhaust. Fixed-bed reactors generally work with high carbon main-
tenance, long holding time, high gas velocity and low dust displace-
ment. These types of reactors are used to generate heat and electricity
in small-scale applications. The cooling and cleaning system includes
treatment with cyclone, wet washing towers and dry filters (Fig. 8). The
Table 7
Product yields, chemical inputs and electricity used in the CW bio-refineries [117].
Large bio-refinery Small bio-refinery
Product yields (/ton of CW)
Ethanol (L) 39.5 0 5. Economic assessment
Limonene (L) 8.9 8.4
Biomethane (m3) 45−54.3 104.7
Digestate (kg) 44.0 41.0
Fig. 5. Production of ethanol from lignocellulosic materials [118,119].
1107
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112
main problem of fixed-bed reactors is the removal of tar, however, with
the recent improvements in thermal and catalytic conversions in
removing this material, it is considered as a good choice [111,114–
116].
Miranda et al. carried out the pyrolysis on dry peels of sweet orange
(Citrus sinensis) in a fixed-bed pyrolyzer. Tests conditions were N2 flow
of 60 ml/min, heating rates of 1, 5, 10, 20 and 40 °C/min, and a
temperature ranging from room temperature to 1000 °C. The dry
orange peel has an average total mass loss of 80% w/w within the
temperature range of 108–628 °C, and the solid product was 20% w/w.
This indicates that orange peel has a high potential for producing liquid
fuel due to its volatile content and low ash content (2.94% w/w). By
pyrolysis of air-dried orange peel, the average yields of bio-oil, char and
gases were 53.1%, 21.1% and 25.8% w/w, respectively [79]. Volpe et al.
studied the slow pyrolysis of lemon and orange peel wastes from citrus
juice industries after drying in a fixed-bed pyrolysis reactor to produce
bio-oil and char. Bio-oil yields were between 36% and 39% w/w at
temperatures 400-650 °C. In these conditions, the char yields were
between 37.2% and 40.8% w/w. The tars extracted from bio-oil had
constant gross calorific values (GCVs) of approximately 19,700 and
17,000 J/g for lemon and orange peel wastes, respectively [77]. The
pyrolysis of orange peel residues in a fixed-bed reactor was studied by
Aguiar et al. The influences of pyrolysis temperature (300–600 °C) and
particle size (dp < 300 mm and dp > 800 mm) on product distribution,
gas composition and char heating value were investigated. Gas, char
and water are the main obtained products. The char, gas, and tar yields
were 30.6%, 31.6%, and 6.6% w/w, respectively [80].
Literature results show that approximately bio-oil (39–53% w/w)
and char (21–40.8% w/w) can be achieved from CW by pyrolysis
depending on its type in Iran. Using fast or flash pyrolysis techniques,
the bio-oil yield can be increased to 75%.
Citrus peel contains approximately 20–25% solids including
46.40% C, 46.33% O2, 5.70% H2, and 1.52% N2, and the rest is other
materials [80]. With this approach, from the 682,987.97 t of CWs in
Iran (including 136,597 t of dry matter), 53,272 to 102,447 t of bio-oil
and 28,685 to 55,731 t of char can be achieved.
In practice, the same amount of wastes exist in various stages of
harvesting, transportation and storage, which account for approxi-
mately 25 to 30% of the total citrus production in Iran. In this case, the
production of ethanol, biogas, and bio-oil can be doubled.
In the USA, Zhou et al. investigated the economics of the citrus
ethanol production process. The economic model for the cellulose-to-
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

Fig. 6. CW bio-refinery with ethanol, methane and limonene as products [121].

Table 8 In Iran, the enzymes required for destroying CWs cellular tissue
General properties of biogas [123]. cost 8-15 cents per liter of ethanol. For one liter of ethanol production,
approximately 25 kg of CWs is needed. With regard to the collection
Composition 55–70% methane (CH4)
30–45% carbon dioxide (CO2)
and transportation of CWs (0.5 cents per 1 kg, 12.5 cents per 1 l of
Traces of other gases ethanol in Iran) and processing costs (5–10 cents per 1 l of ethanol),
Energy content 6.0–6.5 kWh m– 3 the production costs per liter of ethanol in Iran are between 25.5 and
Fuel equivalent 0.60–0.65 L oil/m3 biogas 37.5 cents. Assuming a profit of 20%, the produced ethanol will cost
Explosion limits 6 – 12% biogas in air
30.6-45 cents per liter. The gasoline price is 32 cents per liter in Iran.
Ignition temperature 650–750° C (with the above – mentioned methane
content) Therefore, the total cost of ethanol production can be a good explana-
Critical pressure 75–89 bar tion for investment in the agriculture sector to convert CWs into fuels.
Critical temperature − 82.5° C The price of total ethanol produced from CWs (27 million liters) is
Normal density 1.2 kg m– 3 between 8.26 and 12.15 million dollars. This amount of ethanol can be
Smell Bad eggs (the smell of desulfurized biogas is hardly
noticeable)
used to improve the octane number of 243 million liters of gasoline
Molar Mass 16.043 kg kmol– 1 with 10volume percent ethanol for existing engines in Iran where the
daily gasoline consumption is more than 68 million liters.
In 2015, the average price of natural gas for Iran's domestic and
ethanol process was used as a benchmark to estimate the project costs industrial consumptions was 8.3 and 4.6 cents per m3, respectively.
and the fixed operating costs for the peel-to-ethanol process. The With maximum methane production of 79 m3 from CWs, this might be
production cost of citrus ethanol were approximately 32.5 cents per a good alternative for the industrial and domestic consumptions.
liter, which was higher than the cost of corn ethanol (26.4 cents per Producing bio-oil from CW compared to ethanol and biogas
liters). However, it was lower than the cost of cellulose ethanol (35.7– production is more expensive.
42.8 cents per liter) [133]. Breakdown of costs are given in Table 9. The Average cost of bio-oil production is 38 cents per liter which can be
price of limonene with a yield of about 8.4 l per ton of wet CWs [110] is higher considering the various conditions such as the type of pyrolyzer
$0.1929 per liter, which has a high value-added. and drying costs. The bio-oil with its byproducts can provide 36 MJ per

Fig. 7. Process flow during AD [124,125].

1108
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112

Fig. 8. The schematics of pyrolysis fixed-bed reactor and pyrolysis process.

Table 9 of these modes has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.
Production costs for the peel-to-ethanol processes with and without the recovery of Digestion has less costs than other two methods. In the pyrolysis
limonene [133]. method, the costs of drying and reactor heat supply are high and
Limonene recovery No limonene
depend on the production zone. For example, in hot and dry zones like
($) recovery ($) southern Iranian provinces of Fars and Kerman (the second and third
important provinces in citrus production), in all seasons of the year, the
Citrus peels 0.0132 0.0132 solar irradiation is high, and solar drying can be used; whereas in
Chemicals, waste disposal, 0.3700 0.3250
northern provinces with moderate temperature, high humidity and
and utilities
Labor, supplies, and 0.0555 0.0555 overcast weather, like Mazandaran (the first province in citrus produc-
overhead expenses tion), Guilan and Golestan, solar irradiation is sufficient only in certain
Depreciation of capital 0.0793 0.0793 months of the year. The solar drying is more feasible and less costly in
Co-product credit (limonene) –0.1929 0.0000
southern provinces due to their high solar irradiation and good heat
Total production cost 0.3250 0.4729
supply for reactors.
In 2014, Iranian natural gas consumption reached 422 million m3
Table 10 per day, of which 23.5% was consumed in power plants, 19.5% in
Three modes of fuel production from CWs. major industries, and 57% in domestic, commercial and non-major
industries [134]. The energy value of biogas is between 4.5 and 8.5
Process type Products Price kWh m3 depending on the amount of methane, carbon dioxide, and
(US
Ethanol Biogas Bio-oil Char million
other gases. Assuming 60% methane in biogas, an equivalent energy of
$) 6 kWh can be produced compared to natural gas with 11 kWh of energy
[135]. Energy consumption of natural gas per day was equivalent to
Fermentation 27×106 l 30.7×106 m3 – – 10.81 4,642,000 MWh in 2014, and assuming a 365-d year, the total energy
+Digestio- −14.70
consumption was 1,694,330,000 MWh. The methane produced from
na
Digestionb – 79×106 m3 – – 6.56 CWs (79 m3) in the present study can generate 869,000 MWh energy.
Pyrolysisc – – 84.9×106 l 17,757 kg 28.60

a
Yields per tons: (39.5 l Ethanol+45 m3 Methane); Price: 8.26–12.15+2.55 US
million $.
b
Yields per tons (116 m3 Methane); Price: 6.56 US million $.
c
Yields per ton (621 l Bio-oil+130 kg Char); Price: 26.7+1.9 US million $.
liter energy. Pyrolysis products cost approximately 32 cents per liter,
with a selling price of 19.6% (38 cents) [104] higher than that of an
energy-equivalent amount of fossil oil (an average of 32 cents per liter
in 2015) in Iran. This amount of bio-oil production from CWs is 53,272
to 102,447 t or 44.1-84.9 million liters (density of bio-oil being
1.207 kg/l). This amount matches 277,000 to 534,000 barrels of oil.
This amount of fuel (bio-oil) worth 13.85-26.7 million dollars.
Table 10 shows the three modes of fuel production from CWs. Each
6. Conclusion
In general, CWs have a potential to produce 27 million liters of
ethanol alone, 79 million m3 of methane, 84.9 million liters of bio-oil
and 17.8 t of char equivalent to 28.60 million dollars in Iran (Table 10).
The production of these fuels can be doubled by collecting CWs from
harvest, transportation, and storage stages. High energy prices, in-
creased imports, concerns about oil reserves and a better under-
standing of the environmental consequences of fossil fuels have been
stimulants for an interest in use of biofuels [136]. Average gasoline
consumption in 2014 was 68.4 million liters per day, which includes
64.9 million liters of regular gasoline and 3.5 million liters of premium
gasoline. In the same year, the import of additives was raised to

1109
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al.
increase the octane number of 1.3 billion liters of produced gasoline in
refineries (3.5 million liters a day). This shows a 102% increase
compared to the previous year, which worth about one billion dollars
[134]. These additives create emissions and environmental impacts.
Ethanol from CWs as a clean fuel can be used instead of these
detrimental additives.
Given the abundant production of CWs in Iran due to lack of proper
storage conditions and insufficient processing industries, it can be a
good investment to produce biomass fuel. A considerable portion of
agricultural wastes are produced in the northern provinces of Iran. Due
to the geographical conditions and the close proximity of the provinces,
they have a huge potential for producing biofuels by investment and
construction of bio-refineries. In the southern provinces, combining
biomass and solar energy can be used, and a large portion of energy
required for fuel production from CWs can be provided by renewable
solar energy.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate Gorgan University of Agricultural Science
and Natural Resources for their supports.
References
[1] Hamzeh Y, Ashori A, Mirzaei B, Abdulkhani A, Molaei M. Current and potential
capabilities of biomass for green energy in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:4934–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.060.
[2] Mohammadnejad M, Ghazvini M, Mahlia TMI, Andriyana a. A review on energy
scenario and sustainable energy in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:4652–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.087.
[3] Renewable energy organization of Iran. n.d. 〈http://www.suna.org.ir〉.
[4] Huang YH, Wu JH. Analysis of biodiesel promotion in Taiwan. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2008;12:1176–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.01.009.
[5] Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Tavakoli T, Buttsworth DR, Yusaf TF, Faizollahnejad M.
Performance and exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine with ethanol blended
gasoline fuels using artificial neural network. Appl Energy 2009;86:630–9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.017.
[6] Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Yusaf TF. Algae as a sustainable energy source for biofuel
production in Iran: a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3870–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.010.
[7] Liu BT, Mcconkey B, Huffman T, Smith S, Macgregor B, et al. Potential and
impacts of renewable energy production from agricultural biomass in Canada.
Appl Energy 2014;130:222–9.
[8] P. M . Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour
Technol 2002;83:37–46.
[9] Demirbas A. Potential applications of renewable energy sources, biomass com-
bustion problems in boiler power systems and combustion related environmental
issues. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2005;31:171–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pecs.2005.02.002.
[10] Taghizadeh-Alisaraei A, Rezaei-Asl A. The effect of added ethanol to diesel fuel on
performance, vibration, combustion and knocking of a CI engine. Fuel
2016;185:718–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.08.041.
[11] Ghobadian B. Liquid biofuels potential and outlook in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2012;16:4379–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.013.
[12] Izadi Malihe, Ali Zangi Abadi EF. Analysis of the spatial distribution of processing
industry in Isfahan province cities using (Pidi). Town Country Plan 2012;4:5–22,
[in persian].
[13] KianiMKD. Investigating the Thermal Balance of an Internal Combustion Engine
Using Bioethanol-Gasoline Blend. Tarbiat Modares, Iran; 2008.
[14] Kangarshahi Ali Asadi, Gholamreza Savaghebi NAA. Reduce alternate bearing in
citrus unshiu with nitrogen and pruning Management in East of Mazandaran. J
Hortic Sci 2012:3.
[15] Martín M a, Siles J a, Chica a F, Martín a. Biomethanization of orange peel waste.
Bioresour Technol 2010;101:8993–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2010.06.133.
[16] Anwar F, Naseer R, Bhanger MI, Ashraf S, Talpur FN, Aladedunye FA. Physico-
chemical characteristics of citrus seeds and seed oils from Pakistan. J Am Oil
Chem Soc 2008;85:321–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11746-008-1204-3.
[17] El-AdawyTARahmaEHEl-BedawyAAGafarAE. Properties of some citrus seeds.
Part 3. Evaluation as a new source of protein and oil. Nahrung-Food; 1999.
[18] Wikandari R, Millati R, Cahyanto MN, Taherzadeh MJ. Biogas production from
citrus waste by membrane bioreactor. Membranes, 4. Basel; 2014. p. 596–607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes4030596.
[19] Mizuki E, Akao T, Saruwatari T. Inhibitory effect of Citrus unshu peel on anaerobic
digestion. Biol Wastes 1990;33:161–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(90)
90002-A.
[20] Citrus OF, Hydrolysis SBYD. Optimization study of citrus wastes. BioResources
2008;3:108–22.
1110
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112
[21] WikandariRNguyenHMillatiRNiklassonCTaherzadehMJ. Improvement of Biogas
Production from Orange Peel Waste by Leaching of Limonene. Biomed Res
International; 2015.
[22] Grohmann K, Baldwin E a, Buslig BS. Production of ethanol from enzymatically
hydrolyzed orange peel by the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Biochem
Biotechnol 1994;45–46:315–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02941808.
[23] Kaparaju PLN, Rintala J a. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of industrial orange
waste. Environ Technol 2006;27:623–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09593332708618676.
[24] Wilkins MR, Widmer WW, Grohmann K, Cameron RG. Hydrolysis of grapefruit
peel waste with cellulase and pectinase enzymes. Bioresour Technol
2007;98:1596–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.06.022.
[25] Singh R, Shukla A, Tiwari S, Srivastava M. A review on deligni fi cation of
lignocellulosic biomass for enhancement of ethanol production potential.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:713–28.
[26] Wilkins MR, Widmer WW, Grohmann K. Simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation of citrus peel waste by Saccharomyces cerevisiae to produce ethanol.
Process Biochem 2007;42:1614–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proc-
bio.2007.09.006.
[27] Oberoi HS, Vadlani PV, Nanjundaswamy A, Bansal S, Singh S, Kaur S, et al.
Enhanced ethanol production from Kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata) waste via
a statistically optimized simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:1593–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2010.08.111.
[28] Uçkun E, Liu Y, Kiran EU, Liu Y. Bioethanol production from mixed food waste by
an effective enzymatic pretreatment. Fuel 2015;159:463–9.
[29] Banerjee S, Sen R, Pandey R a, Chakrabarti T, Satpute D, Giri BS, et al. Evaluation
of wet air oxidation as a pretreatment strategy for bioethanol production from rice
husk and process optimization. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33:1680–6. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.09.001.
[30] Minu K, Jiby KK, Kishore VVN. Isolation and purification of lignin and silica from
the black liquor generated during the production of bioethanol from rice straw.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2012;39:210–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biom-
bioe.2012.01.007.
[31] Dagnino EP, Chamorro ER, Romano SD, Felissia FE, Area MC. Optimization of
the acid pretreatment of rice hulls to obtain fermentable sugars for bioethanol
production. Ind Crops Prod 2013;42:363–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.in-
dcrop.2012.06.019.
[32] EvcanETariC. Production of bioethanol from apple pomace by using cocultures:
Conversion of agro-industrial waste to value added product. Energy; 2015.
[33] Tan HT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. Second-generation bio-ethanol (SGB) from
Malaysian palm empty fruit bunch: energy and exergy analyses. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:5719–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.02.023.
[34] Sánchez ÓJ, Cardona C a, Sa J. Trends in biotechnological production of fuel
ethanol from different feedstocks. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:5270–95. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.013.
[35] Chiesa S, Gnansounou E. Use of empty fruit bunches from the oil palm for
bioethanol production: a thorough comparison between dilute acid and dilute
alkali pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 2014;159:355–64. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.122.
[36] Yadav KS, Naseeruddin S, Prashanthi GS, Sateesh L, Rao LV, Srilekha Yadav K,
et al. Bioethanol fermentation of concentrated rice straw hydrolysate using co-
culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia stipitis. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:6473–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.019.
[37] Watanabe M, Takahashi M, Sasano K, Kashiwamura T, Ozaki Y, Tsuiki T, et al.
Bioethanol production from rice washing drainage and rice bran. J Biosci Bioeng
2009;108:524–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2009.06.014.
[38] Park JY, Ike M, Arakane M, Shiroma R, Li Y, Arai-Sanoh Y, et al. DiSC (direct
saccharification of culms) process for bioethanol production from rice straw.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:6502–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2011.03.065.
[39] Roy P, Orikasa T, Tokuyasu K, Nakamura N, Shiina T. Evaluation of the life cycle
of bioethanol produced from rice straws. Bioresour Technol 2012;110:239–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.094.
[40] Chen WH, Pen BL, Yu CT, Hwang WS. Pretreatment efficiency and structural
characterization of rice straw by an integrated process of dilute-acid and steam
explosion for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:2916–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.052.
[41] Ur Rehman MS, Kim I, Chisti Y, Han JI, Saif M, Rehman U, et al. Use of
ultrasound in the production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Energy
Educ Sci Technol Part A Energy Sci Res 2012;30:359–78.
[42] Girish V, Kumar KR, Girishna ST. Estimation of sugar and bio ethanol from
different decaying fruits extract. Adv Appl Sci Res 2014;5(1):106–10.
[43] NasreenZJabeenSShafiqueMUsmanSYaseenTYasmeenA. et al. Production of al-
cohol by yeast isolated from apple, orange and banana; 2014.
[44] Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Tavakoli T, Yusaf T. Potential of bioethanol production
from agricultural wastes in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1418–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.010.
[45] Choi IS, Lee YG, Khanal SK, Park BJ, Bae H, Seong I, et al. A low-energy, cost-
effective approach to fruit and citrus peel waste processing for bioethanol
production. Appl Energy 2015;140:65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2014.11.070.
[46] Choi IS, Kim J-HH, Wi SG, Kim KH, Bae H-JJ. Bioethanol production from
mandarin (Citrus unshiu) peel waste using popping pretreatment. Appl Energy
2013;102:204–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.066.
[47] Boluda-Aguilar M, García-Vidal L, González-castañeda FDP, López-gómez A.
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al.
Mandarin peel wastes pretreatment with steam explosion for bioethanol produc-
tion. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3506–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2009.12.063.
[48] Santi G, Crognale S, Annibale AD, Petruccioli M, Ruzzi M, Valentini R, et al.
Orange peel pretreatment in a novel lab-scale direct steam-injection apparatus for
ethanol production. Biomass- Bioenergy 2014;61:146–56. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.12.007.
[49] Widmer W, Zhou W, Grohmann K. Pretreatment effects on orange processing
waste for making ethanol by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation.
Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5242–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2009.12.038.
[50] Zhou W, Widmer W, Grohmann K. Developments in ethanol production from
citrus peel waste. Proc Fla State Hort Soc 2008:307–10.
[51] Length F. Comparative study of biogas production from chemically-treated
powdered and un-powdered rice husks. Environ Chem 2011;3:75–9.
[52] YangLGeXWanCYuFLiY. Progress and perspectives in converting biogas to
transportation fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev; 2014.
[53] Periyasamy Elaiyaraju. Biogas production from co-digestion of orange peel waste
and jatropha de-oiled cake in an anaerobic batch reactor. Afr J Biotechnol
2012:11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.2622.
[54] Koppar A, Pullammanappallil P. Anaerobic digestion of peel waste and wastewater
for on site energy generation in a citrus processing facility. Energy 2013;60:62–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.08.007.
[55] Zhang R, El-Mashad HM, Hartman K, Wang F, Liu G, Choate C, et al.
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour
Technol 2007;98:929–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.039.
[56] El-Shimi S a, El-Housseini M, Ali BE, El-Shinnawi MM. Biogas generation from
food-processing wastes. Resour Conserv Recycl 1992;6:315–27. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(92)90055-7.
[57] OnahDUOfforPOBAEEzekoyeVA. Characterization of biogas produced from rice
husks and algae using a metal fixed-dome biodigester. Glob J Sci Front Res; 2014.
[58] Okeh OC, Onwosi CO, Odibo FJC. Biogas production from rice husks generated
from various rice mills in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Renew Energy 2014;62:204–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.006.
[59] Ratanatamskul C, Onnum G, Yamamoto K. A prototype single-stage anaerobic
digester for co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge from high-rise building
for on-site biogas production. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2014;95:176–80.
[60] Bożym M, Florczak I, Zdanowska P, Wojdalski J, Klimkiewicz M. An analysis of
metal concentrations in food wastes for biogas production. Renew Energy
2015;77:467–72.
[61] Ratanatamskul C, Wattanayommanaporn O, Yamamoto K. An on-site prototype
two-stage anaerobic digester for co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge for
biogas production from high-rise building. Proc Sard 2011:102.
[62] Wang D, Ai P, Yu L, Tan Z, Zhang Y. Comparing the hydrolysis and biogas
production performance of alkali and acid pretreatments of rice straw using two-
stage anaerobic fermentation. Biosyst Eng 2015;132:47–55. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.02.007.
[63] Mussoline W, Esposito G, Lens P, Garuti G, Giordano A. Design considerations for
a farm-scale biogas plant based on pilot-scale anaerobic digesters loaded with rice
straw and piggery wastewater. Biomass- Bioenergy 2012;46:469–78. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.07.013.
[64] Rizwan M, Yousaf S, Naseem R, Haider MR, Zeshan , Yousaf S, et al. Effect of
mixing ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum
ratio on biogas production. Bioresour Technol 2015;190:451–7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.105.
[65] Teghammar A, Karimi K, Sárvári Horváth I, Taherzadeh MJ. Enhanced biogas
production from rice straw, triticale straw and softwood spruce by NMMO
pretreatment. Biomass- Bioenergy 2012;36:116–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2011.10.019.
[66] Ye J, Li D, Sun Y, Wang G, Yuan Z, Zhen F, et al. Improved biogas production from
rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Manag
2013;33:2653–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.014.
[67] Hansen TL, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I, Marca E, Jansen JLC, Mosbæk H, et al.
Method for determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Waste
Manag 2004;24:393–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.009.
[68] Bouallagui H, Lahdheb H, Ben Romdan E, Rachdi B, Hamdi M. Improvement of
fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-
substrates addition. J Environ Manag 2009;90:1844–9. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.002.
[69] Scano EA, Asquer C, Pistis A, Ortu L, Demontis V, Cocco D, et al. Biogas from
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: experimental results on pilot-
scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power plant. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;77:22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.encon-
man.2013.09.004.
[70] Lane a G. Laboratory scale anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable solid waste.
Biomass 1984;5:245–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0144-4565(84)90072-6.
[71] Prakash EV, Singh LP. Biomethanation of vegetable and fruit waste in co-digestion
process. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 2013;3:493–5.
[72] Rashid U, Ibrahim M, Yasin S, Yunus R, Taufiq-Yap YHH, Knothe G. Biodiesel
from Citrus reticulata (mandarin orange) seed oil, a potential non-food feedstock.
Ind Crops Prod 2013;45:355–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.in-
dcrop.2012.12.039.
[73] Cc O, Bull OS, Obunwo CC. Bio-diesel production from oil of orange (Citrus
sinensis) peels as feedstock. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 2014;18:371–4.
[74] Bridgwater AV, Grassi G. Biomass pyrolysis liquids upgrading and utilisation.
Brussels and Luxembourg: Elsevier Science Publishers LTD. ECSC, EEC, EAEC;
1111
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112
1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3844-4.
[75] Lopez-Velazquez M a, Santes V, Balmaseda J, Torres-Garcia E. Pyrolysis of orange
waste: a thermo-kinetic study. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2013;99:170–7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.09.016.
[76] Morales S, Miranda R, Bustos D, Cazares T, Tran H. Solar biomass pyrolysis for
the production of bio-fuels and chemical commodities. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2014;109:65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2014.07.012.
[77] Volpe M, Panno D, Volpe R, Messineo A. Upgrade of citrus waste as a biofuel via
slow pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaap.2015.06.015.
[78] Kim B-S, Kim Y-M, Jae J, Watanabe C, Kim S, Jung S-C, et al. Pyrolysis and
catalytic upgrading of Citrus unshiu peel. Bioresour Technol 2015;194:312–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.035.
[79] Miranda R, Bustos-Martinez D, Blanco CS, Villarreal MHHG, Cantú MERER.
Pyrolysis of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) dry peel. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2009;86:245–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2009.06.001.
[80] Aguiar L, Márquez-Montesinos F, Gonzalo a, Sánchez JLL, Arauzo J, Sa JL, et al.
Influence of temperature and particle size on the fixed bed pyrolysis of orange peel
residues. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2008;83:124–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaap.2008.06.009.
[81] Su H, Tan F, Xu Y. Enhancement of biogas and methanization of citrus waste via
biodegradation pretreatment and subsequent optimized fermentation. Fuel
2016;181:843–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.055.
[82] Fagbohungbe MO, Herbert BMJ, Hurst L, Li H, Usmani SQ, Semple KT. Impact of
biochar on the anaerobic digestion of citrus peel waste. Bioresour Technol
2016;216:142–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.106.
[83] Negro V, Mancini G, Ruggeri B, Fino D. Citrus waste as feedstock for bio-based
products recovery: review on limonene case study and energy valorization.
Bioresour Technol 2016;214:806–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2016.05.006.
[84] Karmee SK. Liquid biofuels from food waste: current trends, prospect and
limitation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:945–53. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.041.
[85] Hamawand I, Sandell G, Pittaway P, Chakrabarty S, Yusaf T, Chen G, et al.
Bioenergy from cotton industry wastes: a review and potential. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;66:435–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.033.
[86] Ji LQ. An assessment of agricultural residue resources for liquid biofuel produc-
tion in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:561–75. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.011.
[87] Zaafouri K, Ben Hassen Trabelsi A, Krichah S, Ouerghi A, Aydi A, Claumann CA,
et al. Enhancement of biofuels production by means of co-pyrolysis of Posidonia
oceanica (L.) and frying oil wastes: experimental study and process modeling.
Bioresour Technol 2016;207:387–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2016.02.004.
[88] Koutinas A, Kanellaki M, Bekatorou A, Kandylis P, Pissaridi K, Dima A, et al.
Economic evaluation of technology for a new generation biofuel production using
wastes. Bioresour Technol 2016;200:178–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bior-
tech.2015.09.093.
[89] Abu Tayeh H, Levy-Shalev O, Azaizeh H, Dosoretz CG. Subcritical hydrothermal
pretreatment of olive mill solid waste for biofuel production. Bioresour Technol
2016;199:164–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.138.
[90] Searle SY, Malins CJ. Waste and residue availability for advanced biofuel
production in EU Member States. Biomass- Bioenergy 2015;89:2–10. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.01.008.
[91] Razaghi A, Karthikeyan OP, Hao HTN, Heimann K. Hydrolysis treatments of fruit
and vegetable waste for production of biofuel precursors. Bioresour Technol
2016;217:100–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.041.
[92] Marín FR, Soler-rivas C, Benavente-García O, Castillo J, Pérez-Alvarez J a,
Benavente-garcı O, et al. By-products from different citrus processes as a source of
customized functional fibres. Food Chem 2007;100:736–41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.04.040.
[93] Dahmoune F, Boulekbache L, Moussi K, Aoun O, Spigno G, Madani K.
Valorization of Citrus limon residues for the recovery of antioxidants: evaluation
and optimization of microwave and ultrasound application to solvent extraction.
Ind Crops Prod 2013;50:77–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.in-
dcrop.2013.07.013.
[94] Luque De Castro MD. Towards a comprehensive exploitation of agrofood residues:
olive tree - olive oil as example. Comptes Rendus Chim 2014;17:252–60. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2013.11.010.
[95] Martín MA, Siles JA, El Bari H, Chica AF, Martín A. Orange Peel: Organic Waste
or Energetic Resource? N.d.;1:25–28
[96] Food And Agriculture Organization of The United Nations Statistics Division.
〈http://faostat3.fao.org/〉. n.d.
[97] Ministry of Agricultural Jihad Iran. Statistics of garden products 2014. Tehran:
2015.
[98] Ruiz B, Flotats X. Citrus essential oils and their influence on the anaerobic
digestion process: an overview. Waste Manag 2014;34:2063–79. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.026.
[99] Hayat K, Zhang X, Chen H, Xia S, Jia C, Zhong F. Liberation and separation of
phenolic compounds from citrus mandarin peels by microwave heating and its
effect on antioxidant activity. Sep Purif Technol 2010;73:371–6. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2010.04.026.
[100] Hayat K, Hussain S, Abbas S, Farooq U, Ding B, Xia S, et al. Optimized
microwave-assisted extraction of phenolic acids from citrus mandarin peels and
evaluation of antioxidant activity in vitro. Sep Purif Technol 2009;70:63–70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.08.012.
A. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al.
[101] Mohammadi MaghanakiMGhobadianBJanzadeh GalogahRNajafiGH The feasi-
bility of using agricultural waste to produce electricity and heat simultaneously in
Iran. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on waste, recycling and
biomass management, Tehran: 2013, p. (in Persian).
[102] Syrup production instead of juice in the factory!. 〈http://www.ghatreh.com/news/
nn14863459〉 n.d.
[103] FarboudniayMohamadaliHatamipourMohamadsadeghSeyed Mehdi MajidiMA.
Production of pectin, dietary fiber and valuable nutrients from citrus waste. Natl.
Iran. Chem. Eng. Congr., Elmo Sanat Tehran; 2005.
[104] Ning SK, Hung MC, Chang YH, Wan HP, Lee HT, Shih RF. Benefit assessment of
cost, energy, and environment for biomass pyrolysis oil. J Clean Prod
2013;59:141–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.042.
[105] Sharma A, Pareek V, Zhang D. Biomass pyrolysis—a review of modelling, process
parameters and catalytic studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1081–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.193.
[106] Demirbas A. Competitive liquid biofuels from biomass. Appl Energy
2011;88:17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.016.
[107] EisentrautA. Sustainable production of second-generation biofuels – Potential
and perspectives in major economies and developing countries; 2010.
[108] Li-Beisson Y, Peltier G. Third-generation biofuels: current and future research on
microalgal lipid biotechnology 2013;20:D606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ocl/
2013031.
[109] AzadAKRasulMGKhanMMKSharmaSCHazratMA. Prospect of biofuels as an al-
ternative transport fuel in Australia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev; 2015.
[110] Forgacs Gergely. Biogas production from citrus wastes and chicken feather.
Chalmers University of Technology; 2012.
[111] Boluda-Aguilar M, López-Gómez A. Production of bioethanol by fermentation of
lemon (Citrus limon L.) peel wastes pretreated with steam explosion. Ind Crops
Prod 2013;41:188–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.04.031.
[112] Pourbafrani M, Forgács G, Sárvári I, Niklasson C, Horváth IS, Niklasson C, et al.
Production of biofuels, limonene and pectin from citrus wastes. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:4246–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.077.
[113] Balasubramanian K, Ambikapathy V, Panneerselvam a. Studies on ethanol
production from spoiled fruits by batch fermentations. J Microbiol Biotechnol Res
2011;1:158–63.
[114] Nigam PS, Singh A. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 2011;37:52–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pecs.2010.01.003.
[115] Lin Y, Tanaka S. Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: current state and
prospects. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2006;69:627–42. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s00253-005-0229-x.
[116] Lohrasbi M, Pourbafrani M, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ. Process design and
economic analysis of a citrus waste biorefinery with biofuels and limonene as
products. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:7382–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2010.04.078.
[117] Pourbafrani M, McKechnie J, MacLean HL, Saville B a. Life cycle greenhouse gas
impacts of ethanol, biomethane and limonene production from citrus waste.
Environ Res Lett 2013;8:1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/
015007.
1112
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 1100–1112
[118] GashawAGetachewT. Fermentation of Crop Residues and Fruit Wastes for
Production of Ethanol and Its Pretreatment Methods A Review. International J
Res; 2014.
[119] Galbe M, Zacchi G. A review of the production of ethanol from softwood. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2002;59:618–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-
1058-9.
[120] Barfani mohammad pour. Citrus waste biorefinery: process development, simu-
lation and economic analysis. Chalmers University of Technology; 2010.
[121] THesis For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy, Citrus Waste Biorefinery:
Process Development, Simulation and Economic Analysis Department of
Chemical and Biological Engineering; 2010
[122] Wu B, Zhang X, Xu Y, Bao D, Zhang S. Assessment of the energy consumption of
the biogas upgrading process with pressure swing adsorption using novel
adsorbents. J Clean Prod 2015;101:251–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2015.03.082.
[123] DeubleinDSteinhauserA. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An
Introduction, Second Edition. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9783527632794;
2010.
[124] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from
organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:821–6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.042.
[125] MontgomeryLFRZhengYZhaoJXuFLiY. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass
for enhanced biogas production; 2014.
[126] NguyenH. Biogas Production from Solvent Pretreated Orange Peel; 2012.
[127] Basu P, Prabir B, Basu P. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and
theory. United States: Elsevier; 2010.
[128] Zeng K, Flamant G, Gauthier D, Guillot E. Solar pyrolysis of wood in a lab-scale
solar reactor: influence of temperature and sweep gas flow rate on products
distribution. Energy Procedia 2015;69:1849–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2015.03.163.
[129] Apaydin-Varol E, Pu E, Pütün E, Pütün AE. Slow pyrolysis of pistachio shell. Fuel
2007;86:1892–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.11.041.
[130] Crocker M. Thermochemical conversion of biomass to liquid fuels and chemicals.
RSC Energy Environ Ser 2010;1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/9781849732260.
[131] Sharma A, Pareek V, Zhang D. Biomass pyrolysis—a review of modelling, process
parameters and catalytic studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1081–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.193.
[132] Processing T, Brown RC. Thermochemical processing of biomass. John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990840.
[133] Zhou W, Widmer W, Grohmann K, Haven W, Zhou W, Widmer W, et al. Economic
analysis of ethanol production from citrus peel waste. Proc Fla State Hort Soc
2007;120:310–5.
[134] AghayanH. Statistics energy consumption of petroleum products- 2014; 2015.
[135] Eriksson O. Environmental technology assessment of natural gas compared to
biogas. Nat Gas 2010:127–47.
[136] Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D. Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 2006;103:11206–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604600103.