Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

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

Review

A review on life cycle assessment of biogas production: Challenges and T

future perspectives in Malaysia
Nur Izzah Hamna A. Aziza, Marlia M. Hanafiaha,∗, Shabbir H. Gheewalab,c
a
School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Centre of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi,
Bangkok, Thailand
c
Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, Bangkok, Thailand

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper provides a comprehensive review of 48 studies on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of biogas pro-
Life cycle assessment (LCA) duction from 2006 to 2018 (13 years). The scope of the study, type of feedstock and impact categories used in
Biogas generation the reviewed studies were discussed. Although various studies have been carried out to assess the efficiency and
Green technology potential of wastes for biogas production, however, little attention has been paid particularly in the developing
Renewable energy
countries to conduct comprehensive analysis related to the environmental performance of biogas generation
Sustainability
Malaysia
based on the LCA methodology. In Malaysia, the utilization of palm oil mill effluent (POME) as the source of
energy has recently been expanded due to its abundant production at the palm oil mills. Therefore, this paper
also highlights and discusses the feasibility of LCA approach on biogas production from POME as well as the
opportunities and challenges from the Malaysian perspective.

1. Introduction transformation, physicochemical transformation and biochemical

Consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels is associated with the
deterioration of resources as well as emissions impacting environmental
quality and human health. Thus, recycling of wastes to produce biogas
has been utilized to partly meet the growing energy demand. Biogas
production is able to provide renewable energy and reduce the de-
pendence on fossil energy sources in addition to contributing to an ef-
fective waste management practice. Fossil fuels are non-renewable
energy carriers comprising coal, oil, petroleum and natural gas, pro-
viding 80% of total energy consumption in the production of electricity
used for industrial and household purposes worldwide [1]. The world
energy consumption is increasing approximately 2% per annum [2].
However, fossil fuels are finite and consumed by humans faster than
they could be replenished. Furthermore, the growing demand for fossil
fuels together with the world's growing population has led to an in-
creasing amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere.
The use of biomass for energy is already widely applied by virtue of
sustainability issues related to fossil fuel consumption. Biomass is a
natural, renewable carbon resource derived from living or dead or-
ganisms and organic materials that have chemical energy content [3].
Biomass can be transformed into gaseous energy carriers through sev-
eral processes such as direct combustion, thermochemical
transformation [4]. Biogas is produced by the anaerobic digestion of
organic substrates, where the complex organic material is broken down
by various types of anaerobic microorganisms. Therefore, biogas is the
end product of the microbiological fermentation with average methane
and carbon dioxide contents of 60% and 40%, respectively [5]. The
combustion of biogas results in zero net carbon dioxide emissions from
a broad LCA perspective. Hence, biogas provides an alternative re-
newable energy and also reduces the dependence on fossil fuel re-
sources. Fig. 1 shows the energy production from various biomass re-
sources.
Several countries like Indonesia, Thailand, China, Brazil, European
countries and the United States of America utilize their locally available
wood and biomass sources to replace oil and coal [6]. Like other
countries, biomass energy sources in Malaysia are derived from wood
wastes, rubber cultivation, rice paddy cultivation, coconut cultivation,
cocoa cultivation, sugarcane cultivation, palm oil, animal wastes and
urban wastes. Nevertheless, the palm oil industry is the biggest biomass
energy producer due its large plantation area in Malaysia [7]. Palm oil
mill effluent (POME) is one of the products from palm oil industry that
can be used to produce energy.
Biomass from the palm oil industry has a high potential in produ-
cing biogas. Accordingly, the government has taken some initiative to

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mhmarlia@ukm.edu.my (M.M. Hanafiah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.047
Received 18 November 2018; Received in revised form 30 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019
Available online 13 February 2019
0961-9534/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
Fig. 1. Bioenergy production from various sources of biomass.
encourage and enhance the utilization of renewable energy, such as
Small Renewable Energy Power Program (SREP), Biomass-Based Power
Generation and Cogeneration in Palm Oil Industry (BioGen) project and
research by the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA).
However, questions on the environmental sustainability of bioenergy
pathways were raised due to the conversion of biomass to energy
contributing to environmental problems. Thus, a comprehensive tool
like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be used to evaluate and ensure the
environmental sustainability of biogas production [8,9]. LCA is a hol-
istic approach to assess environmental burdens of a product by identi-
fying the energy, materials used and emissions released to the en-
vironment [12]. To date, no LCA study has been conducted particularly
on biogas production in Malaysia.
1.1. Scoping
This study provides a review on the application of LCA approach for
biogas production in the literature. 48 recent studies on LCA of biogas
production have been reviewed from countries around the world which
were published in the last 13 years (2006–2018) to explore the trends of
LCA approach in biogas systems. Only studies published in scientific
journals were considered. Databases like Science Direct, Scopus and
Springer were used for searching the literature by using the keywords of
life cycle assessment of biogas, life cycle analysis of biogas production,
environmental impacts of biogas production, environmental evaluation
of biogas production and environmental sustainability of biogas. This
review covers some important aspects such as the scope of the study,
type of biomass resources, biogas utilization and the impact categories.
Only studies which focus on the biogas production pathways and with
relevant case studies concerning on biogas production were included.
Most of the previous studies have been conducted in developed coun-
tries, only a few reported in developing countries. To our knowledge,
no comprehensive study has been carried out so far to evaluate the LCA
of biogas production in Malaysia. Therefore, the latter part of this paper
highlighted the feasibility of LCA approach on biogas production from
362
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
POME as well as the opportunities and challenges from the Malaysian
perspective.
1.2. Previous studies on life cycle assessment of biogas: worldwide overview
There is a growing interest in the evaluation of the environmental
performance of biogas as a green and renewable energy using an LCA
methodology. In this paper, the LCA studies of biogas production from
around the world with different natural conditions were reviewed. The
studies were based on the LCA methods described in the ISO 14040
[11] and 14044 [12]. The concern on the depletion of fossil fuels and
the environmental crisis such as global warming related to greenhouse
gas emissions has led to an increase in research activities on biogas
production from organic wastes for sustainable power generation.
Biogas production is the most economical when the animal and agri-
cultural wastes, municipal solid wastes and waste water effluents can be
utilized to produce energy [4]. Recycling of organic wastes is also a
good and effective environmental investment that can benefit com-
munity well-being and the environment.
Fig. 2 shows that more than half of the studies reviewed in this
paper were carried out in European countries, including Germany,
Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Italy and
Switzerland. One study each was from North America (i.e. Canada) and
South America (i.e. Cuba), and six studies were conducted in Asian
countries (i.e. China, Thailand, Vietnam and Pakistan). Germany pro-
vides great contribution for the European biogas market and became
the largest producer of biogas in the world [13,14]. The growth in
deployment of biogas technology in Germany was followed by other
countries in Europe which explains the large number of LCA studies
done in the continent. In the recent years, an increasing number of LCA
studies on biogas production can also be observed in North America and
Asian countries. The growing interest in the environmental evaluation
associated with the production and utilization of biogas using LCA were
to assess the environmental performance and the sustainability of the
energy pathways [15,16].
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
Fig. 2. Location of the reviewed studies.
Table 1 shows the list of 48 articles on the LCA of biogas with a
different scope of studies, the methodology used, type of feedstock,
biogas and digestate utilization and impact categories. The following
section discusses the components and aspects (i.e. goal definition and
scope, type of biomass sources, functional unit, system boundary,
biogas utilization, digestate utilization and impact categories) which
have been covered in the reviewed studies.
1.3. Goals of reviewed studies
A comprehensive LCA study on biogas production may help to
further enhance the potential of biogas as a sustainable renewable en-
ergy resource. The reviewed studies have different specific goals for
conducting the LCA of biogas energy systems. As for this study, the
scope was divided into six categories; environmental performance,
energy performance, energy and environmental performance, en-
vironmental and economic performance, energy, environmental and
economic performance, and specific factors that influence the perfor-
mance of biogas production.
Fig. 3 shows that the majority of the reviewed studies were con-
cerned with only the environmental performance of biogas systems.
Several impact categories were addressed to evaluate the environ-
mental burdens throughout the production process. Previous studies
show that the environmental performance evaluation of biogas systems
is pertinent in order to ensure the sustainability of the biogas energy
towards the environment. For instance, Vu et al. [27] investigated
whether the application of biogas digesters in Vietnam has positive or
negative impacts on the environment. The study compared the en-
vironmental impacts of pig manure management systems with and
without biogas digesters in the pig farm. The results indicated that the
biogas digester helps to reduce the impact on global warming. How-
ever, it is pertinent to improve the biogas systems to overcome the
losses of biogas from digesters as well as the emission from manure
storage.
Other studies also focused on both energy and environmental per-
formance with all the energy and material flows as well as the emissions
in the system taken into account. Studies have been done to include the
energy performance evaluation in the interest of assessing the energy
balance (energy consumption and production) in biogas production.
The study carried out by Chen et al. [22] in China evaluated the energy
and environmental performance of the comprehensive utilization of
biogas and digestate at the household scale by Six in One biogas system
(SIOBS). SIOBS was used as a supporting device for raw material
treatment, methane utilization and digestate recycling [65,66]. The
study showed the improvement in energy and environmental perfor-
mance of biogas production at different stages in SIOBS.
Several studies have included the economic aspect in the main
363
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
objective of LCA study on biogas production. A research conducted by
Chen and Chen [23] employed the biogas-linked persimmon cultivation
and processing system as a case study to assess the life-cycle production
process of household biogas digestion coupled to the agriculture in-
dustry. Biogas-linked persimmon cultivation and processing system
refers to combining biogas engineering with persimmon production and
processing. The study was carried out in terms of greenhouse gas mi-
tigation, energy production and economic benefit. A unified index
called aggregated economic benefit (AEB) was developed by integrating
energy, environmental and economic aspects of biogas-linked per-
simmon cultivation and processing system to evaluate the tradeoff of
the biogas system in terms of its total benefit at both local and global
scale.
The environmental impacts and greenhouse gases balance of biogas
production may vary depending on different factors such as the type of
biomass raw material, regional and spatial factors, type of biogas sub-
strate, cropping or farming systems, the system boundaries and so forth.
Hence, to overcome these limitations, several studies have been con-
ducted to assess the environmental performance of biogas system in
terms of the specific factor. Claus et al. [24] quantified the methane
yield potential and environmental impacts of different biogas substrate
cropping systems in terms of emission of greenhouse gas and nitrate
leaching. The findings showed that the biogas production from energy
crops contribute to the mitigation of GHG emission. Besides, to achieve
sustainable biogas production, the cropping systems should be tailored
to site conditions and the N fertilization should be adjusted to crop
demand.
Björnsson and Prade [33] evaluated the introduction of grass-clover
crops as biogas feedstock in cereal-dominated crop rotations in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions. The results indicate that the cultivation
system would certainly improve the soil organic carbon content at the
same time resulting in decreased GHG emissions. Dressler et al. [30]
evaluated the regional parameters that influence the results of the LCA
for biogas production from maize and the conversion of biogas into
electricity. The findings demonstrate significant differences among the
investigated areas basically due to the different cultivation systems.
Nhu et al. [36] quantified the resource demand of two integrated Pig-
Biogas-Fish farms in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The results show
that the integrated systems relied on land and water and the intensive
aquaculture practice had a higher feed input than the semi-intensive
integrated with pig and biogas production.
1.4. Type of biomass sources
Biomass sources from agricultural (e.g. harvest residues, energy
crops and animal slurry), industrial (e.g. sludge and remains of the food
industry) and municipal organic wastes can be used as a feedstock for
 Table 1
The overview of previous studies on the LCA of biogas production from 2006 to 2018.
Ref. Scope of study Location Methodology Type of feedstock Biogas utilization Digestate Impact assessment
utilization
Functional unit Reference system System Method/LCA software Animal Plant Industrial Mid-point End-point
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.

boundaries slurry biomass waste/other

[17] Energy and Thailand 1 ton of MSW NA Gate-to-gate SimaPro 5.0, Eco-indicator MSW Electricity Fertilizer ✓ ×
environmental 95
performance
[18] Energy and Germany 1 ton of organic German condition Life cycle SimaPro 7.2, Ecoinvent CM Straws, MSW, FW, CHP Fertilizer × ×
environmental material digested inventory v2.1 MS, GS, GSS, PC
performance Wheat,
Pomace
[19] Environmental Germany 1 ton of feedstock German condition Biogas SimaPro 7.2, Ecoinvent CM Straws, MSW, GSS, CHP, bio Fertilizer ✓ ✓
performance mixture production v2.1, ReCiPe Midpoint (H) Pomace, SW, FW methane
and utilization (CML 2002), ReCiPe CS, WS, GS
pathways Endpoint (H/A) (Eco
indicator 99)
[20] Energy Sweden 1 ton of substrate Swedish condition Energy flow in Energy input/output ratio CM, PM LC, Straws, MOW, GSS, Energy source Returned to the × ×
performance mixture biogas system SB SW origin farm, as
fertilizer
[21] Environmental Switzerland 1 ton of feedstock Swiss condition Cradle-to-gate Ecoinvent v2.0, Eco- MS, SB, FB, Molasses Fuel, CHP Fertilizer on ✓ ×
performance indicator 99, Ecological BR Glycerine agricultural land
Scarcity 2006 method,
IPCC 2007
[22] Energy and China 1 MJ produced by Traditional Biogas- SimaPro 7.1, CML 2000 PM Straws HC, HE Electricity, heat, Base fertilizer, top ✓ ×
environmental the combustion of agrosystem digestate method biofuel dressing, pesticides,
performance biogas utilization feed additive, seed

364
system soaking
[23] Energy, Beijing 1 ton mixed Typical household Cradle-to-gate IPCC, weighting method HW, AW Engine fuel Top-dressing, base ✓ ×
environmental and feedstock without a biogas by CML, Ecoinvent fertilizer
economic digester database, unified index
performance AEB
[24] GHG emission Germany 0.72 kg CO2 eq/ German fossil grid Cradle-to-gate KTBL-database LM MS, Wheat, Electricity, heat Fertilizer ✓ ×
kWhel, 0.31 kg CO2 mix for electricity RG
eq/kWhth and natural gas for
heat
[25] Energy and Italy 100 kWh of Biogas plant in Cradle-to-gate Ecoinvent database, CML MS, TS PS CHP Organic fertilizer ✓ ×
environmental electricity (kWhel) Italy baseline 2000 method
performance produced
[26] Environmental Italy 1 kg of tomato NA Cradle-to- SimaPro, Ecoinvent TP by- CHP Organic fertilizer ✓ ×
performance puree industry gate database v.3, IPCC 2006, products
ILCD method
[27] Environmental Vietnam 1000 kg of liquid Pig manure Cradle-to-gate ReCiPe 2008 method PM Household Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance manure, 100 kg of management consumption
solid manure system
[28] Environmental China 1 ton of pre-dried NA Cradle-to-gate SimaPro, Ecoinvent Straws Compressed into Phytonutrient, ✓ ✓
performance straw database, Eco-indicator 99 Liquid Natural organic solid
(H), IPCC 2007 GWP Gas (LNG) fertilizer
[29] Environmental Germany 1 MJ of electricity The current Cradle-to-gate CML method, GaBi CM, PM, CS, GS, CHP Organic fertilizer ✓ ×
performance average and database, ELCD database, PLM GNS
marginal German eco-invent integrated
electricity mix database, GaBi 4.3
software, IPCC
[30] The impact of Germany (i) 1 kg fresh NA Cradle-to- Eco balancing software MS CHP Fertilizer ✓ ×
regional factors matter of maize, grave GaBi 4.4, GEMIS
(continued on next page)
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
 Table 1 (continued)

Ref. Scope of study Location Methodology Type of feedstock Biogas utilization Digestate Impact assessment
utilization
Functional unit Reference system System Method/LCA software Animal Plant Industrial Mid-point End-point
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.

boundaries slurry biomass waste/other

(ii) 1 kWh of
electricity
[31] Energy and Southern 1 MJ produced by Petrol or other Cradle-to- CML, Ecoinvent database MLC Fuel, heat Fertilizer ✓ ×
environmental Europe combustion biofuels grave
performance
[32] Environmental Italy 1.02 kWh of A real pilot plant Cradle-to- SimaPro 7.2, Ecoinvent 2.1 PLM CP ML, OMWW CHP Soil fertilizer ✓ ×
performance electrical energy, system grave database, Eco-indicator 99
10.92 MJ of (H), IPCC
thermal energy,
1.86 kg of compost
[33] GHG emissions Sweden 1 ha of arable land Presently used Cradle-to-gate IPCC model GC Vehicle fuels Bio fertilizer ✓ ×
food crop rotation
[34] Energy and Luxembourg 1 MJ injected into The imported Cradle-to-gate Umberto 5.5, Ecoinvent EC Injected into the Organic fertilizer ✓ ✓
environmental the natural gas grid natural gas system 2.0, Impact2002+, Eco- natural gas grid
performance indicator 99
[35] Environmental Europe 1 km trip with a Natural gas from Cradle-to- SimaPro 7.3, ReCiPe Offshore- Fuel Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance gas-powered car Ecoinvent database grave method, Ecoinvent v2.2 CSW
database
[36] Resource Vietnam Sum of products NA Cradle-to-farm ExFA, CEENE method, PM Household Base fertilizer for ✓ ×
efficiency (the sum of 1 kg of gate Ecoinvent v2.2 database cooking fish culturing
each product
delivered at the
farm gate)

365
[37] Energy Northern 1 ton of fresh Fossil reference Cradle-to- IPCC, CED method PM MS CHP Organic fertilizer, ✓ ×
performance Italy matter & 1 kWh of system grave cultivation and
electricity harvesting
produced in a CHP
using biogas
[38] Environmental and Germany 1 kWhel emission Fossil reference Cradle-to-gate Umberto 5.6, Ecoinvent SM GS, GNS, CHP Fertilizer ✓ ×
economic system 2.2 database MS
performance
[39] Environmental Germany 1 kg of feedstock NA Cradle-to-gate Simapro 7.3.2, Ecoinvent CHM MS, GS, RS ML CHP Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance mixture & 1 MJ of 2.2 database, ReCiPe
energy production midpoint hierarchist
method v.1.06
[40] Environmental Pakistan NA NA The end use of NA CM PW Energy source Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance digestate
[41] Environmental Norway 1 MJ of electricity Synthetic Cradle-to-gate ARDA v1.8, Ecoinvent SS, OW CHP Fertilizer, soil ✓ ×
performance produced fertilizers and Database v2.2 amendment
electricity from
natural gas
[42] Environmental Cuba 1072 ton of vinasse Traditional supply Cradle-to-gate Ecoinvent database 2.2, Vinasse, Electricity, heat Fertilizer, ✓ ✓
performance and 398 ton of chain ReCiPe method, OpenLCA SWW fertirrigation
SWW version 1.3.1
[43] Environmental Germany 1 kWh The traditional Cradle-to-gate SimaPro 7.3.2, Ecoinvent CHM, MS, RS, BW CHP Agricultural ✓ ×
performance baseload operation 2.2 database, ReCiPe HM GS, SF production
midpoint v.1.06, CED
v.1.08 method
[44] Environmental and Sweden NA NA Cradle-to-gate CML 2001 baseline, FW, SS Vehicle purposes Soil fertilizer ✓ ×
economic ORWARE model
performance
[45] NA Cradle-to-gate CHP, biomethane Fertilizer ✓ ×
(continued on next page)
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
 Table 1 (continued)

Ref. Scope of study Location Methodology Type of feedstock Biogas utilization Digestate Impact assessment
utilization
Functional unit Reference system System Method/LCA software Animal Plant Industrial Mid-point End-point
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.

boundaries slurry biomass waste/other

Environmental United 1 Mg of dry matter LCAD EcoScreen tool, CM, PM, MS, CLS, FW, IW,
balance Kingdom feedstock input Ecoinvent v3.1, CML 2010 PLM, CW, GS, BYW, SW,
PLL BR BKW, WST,
WC
[46] Environmental Wallonia 1 additional MJ of Displaced Cradle-to-gate ILCD, SimaPro 8.0.4.30 FYM MS AFI CHP Organic fertilizer ✓ ×
performance electricity supplied electricity
to the grid production and the
initial uses of the
plant feedstock
[47] Environmental United 1 m3 of biogas NA Cradle-to- SimaPro, Ecoinvent 99 CM, FYM Heat Fertilizer ✓ ✓
performance Kingdom grave
[48] Environmental Italy 1 ton of feedstock NA Cradle-to-gate ReCiPe Midpoint PM MS CHP Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance digested methodology
[49] Environmental United 1 MWh of heat and AD-CHP system Cradle-to-gate Gabi LCA software V4.4, AW CHP Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance Kingdom electricity with electricity and CML 2011 method
heat generation
from fossil-based
[50] Environmental and Umbria 1 kWh of energy Production of Cradle-to- SimaPro 7.3.3, Ecoinvent CM CS, TS OR Cogeneration/ Fertilizer ✓ ×
economic produced energy from fossil grave database v2.0, Eco- CHP
fuels indicator 99 (E) v2.08
[51] Environmental British 1100 ton of dairy Conventional Cradle-to-gate CED method v1.04, IPCC's DM Heat Animal bedding ✓ ×
performance Columbia manure agricultural 2007 GWP factors with a materials, plant
practices timeframe of 100 years, growing media,

366
CML 2001 v2.05, IMPACT liquid fertilizers
2002 + v2.10, SimaPro
7.3.3, Monte Carlo
stochastic analysis
[52] Environmental Singapore 1000 ton of food NA Gate-to-gate NA FW Electricity Compost, ✓ ×
performance waste incineration,
gasification
[53] Environmental and Northern 1 kWh of electrical NA Cradle-to-gate SimaPro, ReCiPe 2016, MS CHP Organic ✓ ✓
economic Italy energy produced Ecoinvent v3.3 amendment,
fertilizer
[54] Energy and Indonesia 1 ton of FFB NA Gate-to-gate SimaPro, IPCC 2013, POME Electricity Land application ✓ ×
environmental Impact 2002+
performance
[55] GHG emissions Ohio and 1 GJ of bioenergy Application of Cradle-to-gate Ratio of primary energy DM Heat energy For algal growth ✓ ×
Hawai produced dairy manure demand to the chemical and soil
without any energy produced, IPCC amendment
treatment to the
land
[56] Energy and China 2136 ton of NA Cradle-to-gate Weighting method PM CHP, injected Fertilizer ✓ ×
environmental manure into the biogas
performance grid
[57] Energy, Thailand 1 MJ of Emission from Gate-to-gate MiLCA software, Inventory FW Vehicle fuels Fertilizer ✓ ×
environmental and biomethane other biomass-to- Database for Lifecycle
economic produced liquid (BTL) fuels Analsis (IDEA), IPCC
[58] Environmental Saudi Arabia 300 kWh of NA Cradle-to-gate SimaPro 8.23 CM, PLM WC Heat and Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance electricity electricity
produced
[59] Environmental United Arab 1 GJ of biogas NA Cradle-to- SimaPro 7.3.3, Eco- CM ML Electricity, Landfilling ✓ ✓
performance Emirates produced grave indicator 99 vehicle fuels
(continued on next page)
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
 Table 1 (continued)

Ref. Scope of study Location Methodology Type of feedstock Biogas utilization Digestate Impact assessment
utilization
Functional unit Reference system System Method/LCA software Animal Plant Industrial Mid-point End-point
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.

boundaries slurry biomass waste/other

[60] Environmental Ethiopia The amount of Dung combustion Gate-to-gate Eco-invent V2.2, CML, CM Household Fertilizer, pastures ✓ ×
performance energy needed to for cooking GaBi software cooking
produce 1 MJ heat
[61] Energy and Mexico 1 MJ of bioenergy NA Cradle-to-gate OpenLCA 1.6.3, Ecoinvent CM NC NA Fertilizer ✓ ×
environmental produced v3.1
performance
[62] Environmental Brazil 1 MJ of ethanol NA Cradle-to-gate SimaPro, CML Baseline Vinasse Fuel Fertirrigation ✓ ×
performance fuel 2000, CanaSoft model
[63] Environmental Europe 1 ha of offshore NA Cradle-to-gate SimaPro 8.0.4, Ecoinvent ML Electricity, heat Fertilizer ✓ ×
performance cultivation area v3.1
[64] Environmental Australia The management NA Gate-to-gate SimaPro 8.0, CML-IA v4.2 FW, SS Electricity, heat Pastures ✓ ×
performance of the annual
quantity of FW and
SS treated

Abbreviation.
NA: not available.
Method: AEB: aggregated economic benefit, CEENE: Cumulative Exergy Extracted from the Natural Environment, CML: Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden, ExFA: exergy flow analysis, ILCD: International Reference Life
Cycle Data System, IPCC: International Panel of Climate Change, KTBL: Kuratorium fur Technik und Buwesen in der Landwirtschaft (Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture), ORWARE: Organic waste
research.
Substrate: AFI: agro-food industries, AW: agricultural waste, BKW: bakery waste, BR: beet residues, BW: biogenic waste, BYW: brewery waste, CHM: chicken manure, CLS: cereal silage, CM: cattle manure, CP: citrus pulp,
CS: corn silage, CSW: cultivated seaweed, CW: crop waste, DM: dairy manure, EC: energy crops, FB: fodder beet, FW: food waste, FYM: farmyard manure, GC: grass clover, GNS: grain silage, GS: grass silage, GSS: grease

367
separator sludge, HC: home scraps, HE: human excrement, HM: horse manure, HR: harvest residues, HW: household waste, IW: industrial waste, LC: ley crops, LM: liquid manure, ML: macro algae, MLC: microalgae
culture, MOW: municipal organic waste, MS: maize silage, MSW: municipal solid waste, NC: nopal cladodes, OMWW: olive mill waste water, OR: olive residues, OW: organic wastes, POME: palm oil mill effluent, PC:
paunch content, PLL: poultry litter, PLM: poultry manure, PM: pig manure, PS: pig silage, PW: potato waste, RG: ryegrass, RS: rye silage SB: sugar beet, SF: sunflowers, SM: solid manure, SS: sewage sludge, SW:
slaughterhouse waste, SWW: sugar wastewater, TP: tomato puree, TS: triticale silage, WC: whey cheese, WS: wheat silage, WST: waste starch.
Biogas Utilization: CHP: Combined Heat and Power.
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
Fig. 3. Scope of reviewed studies.
Fig. 4. The most popular type of biomass sources used for biogas production in
the previous LCA studies.
anaerobic digestion [67]. Fig. 4 shows the most popular type of biomass
sources used for biogas production covered in the studies. Many
countries use their locally available biomass and organic materials as
alternatives to oil, minerals and fossil fuels. For example, in Europe, a
wide range of biomass sources have been used to produce biogas
(Table 1). However, various studies from European countries use maize
as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion to produce biogas as it is the most
productive crop. It is widely used as a feedstock on more than 75% of
the agricultural biogas plants in Germany and provides about 60% of
the biogas energy [68].
The high amount of agricultural wastes generated in China has been
an important source for biogas energy production [23,28]. According to
Chen et al. [69], more than 700 million tonnes of straw can be collected
annually in China. Converting waste straw to biogas energy could not
only be a very good treatment option of waste straw but also alleviate
energy crisis and reduce air pollution in China. The industrial appli-
cation of biogas production from straw has been implemented in many
countries as straw was proved by many studies as a potential alternative
energy source [70–72].
The generation of biogas from animal manure and slurry has also
become popular recently in the agricultural sector. In Vietnam, there is
an increasing livestock production due to the impressive economic
development [73]. However, many problems associated with animal
waste management have arisen on livestock farms in Vietnam.
368
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
Therefore, biogas digester units have been constructed and operated
throughout Vietnam [27,73]. Generation of biogas from manure on
dairy farms produced energy which can be used on site and can be sold
to the public or private utilities. Previous studies proved that the
treatment of the livestock manure by anaerobic digestion process can
produce a quality fertilizer, reduce odors and microbial pathogens with
the production of clean energy source as biogas [73–77].
Anaerobic digestion of biodegradable organic wastes is often the
most popular and cost-effective technology in terms of waste treatment
and management [78,79]. Compared to landfill disposal and waste in-
cineration, anaerobic digestion is considered a viable technology as it
represents an opportunity to reduce the environmental pollution and at
the same time addressed possibilities of the conversion of waste to
energy [80–82]. Using wastes or by-products like food waste and sludge
for production of biogas may also avoid the food vs. energy issues. As
we are aware, the amount of solid wastes worldwide has increased
significantly due to the rapid increase in population and urbanization.
Therefore, some studies on production of biogas from solid waste have
been carried out worldwide [83–87].
The expanding of biogas production from various type of biomass
has led to the increasing of LCA study on the production system. Since
the sources used for the energy production were claimed to be green
and renewable, the researchers are keen to explore the environmental
performance of the product using LCA perspective. In addition, the
reliability, efficiency and sustainability of biogas production as a green
practice in waste management and as an alternative renewable energy
source could be improved.
1.5. Functional unit
The functional unit is used as a reference unit to quantify the per-
formance of the product systems [88]. Usually, the choice of the
functional unit in bioenergy systems is based on energy, mass, distance,
volume and hectare of agriculture land. The reviewed LCA-studies of
biogas production had different functional units; tonne, kg, m3, MJ,
kWh, MWh, km and ha (as shown in Table 1).
1.6. System boundary
The system boundaries show the process or operations and the in-
puts and outputs of the systems to be taken into account in the LCA
[89]. A total of 29 out of 48 reviewed LCA-studies considered the
system boundaries from cradle-to-gate, whereas eight studies assessed
the entire life cycle from cradle-to-grave. The cradle-to-gate approach
basically includes the supplement of feedstock until the biogas pro-
duction, while the cradle-to-grave covers until the biogas utilization
phase.
Nevertheless, several LCA studies have only focused on specific
stages within the system boundaries. Poeschl et al. [18] developed a life
cycle inventory (LCI) of biogas production and utilization to determine
the material and energy requirements and the emissions to air. The
LCI's scope included different biogas production systems and biogas
utilization pathways. Poeschl et al. [19] conducted an attributional LCA
of multiple biogas productions and utilization pathways which con-
sidered four unit processes namely: the feedstock supply logistics,
biogas production in small and large-scale plants, biogas utilization and
the digestate processing and handling. Berglund and Börjesson [20]
assessed the energy flows over the entire life-cycle of the biogas sys-
tems. All energy flows in the biogas system were compared with the
biogas yield. The study described how the net energy output from
biogas systems was affected by the raw materials digested, the system
design and the allocation method chosen. Chen et al. [22] performed an
LCA for a biogas-digestate utilization system offering great opportu-
nities for biogas system optimization. While in a study done by Yasar
et al. [40] only the end use digestate generation stage was included in
the system boundary to assess the impact towards environment and
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
Fig. 5. The utilization of biogas covered by the reviewed LCA studies.
potential of digestate as bio-fertilizer.
1.7. Biogas utilization
In 2012, bioenergy production from biomass contributed approxi-
mately 55 EJ of total global primary energy supply [90]. As shown in
Fig. 5, in most of the reviewed LCA studies, the bioenergy produced is
utilized for heat, electricity and as transportation fuel. In a combined
heat and power (CHP) unit, the biogas generated is used to produce
heat and electricity simultaneously. Usually, the heat is used for self-
consumption (to heat the digesters) while the produced electricity is fed
into the public or national grid. In several studies [37,46,49], both
electricity and heat were self-consumed in the anaerobic digestion plant
for the operation of mixers, pumps and refrigeration units. However,
the excess electricity was also fed into the national grid.
Poeschl et al. [19] investigated the different biogas utilization sce-
narios for small-scale and large-scale biogas plants. The results showed
tri-generation; CHP generation coupled to external heat utilization and
cooling (in small-scale biogas plant) and purification and upgrading
biogas to biomethane coupled with small-scale CHP unit (in large-scale
biogas plant) were the most feasible pathway for sustainable biogas
utilization.
Biogas produced from anaerobic digestion of microalgae can be
upgraded to natural gas quality in order to be used as vehicle fuel [31].
Examples of biogas upgrading technologies include membrane separa-
tion, scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption (PSA) and cryogenic treat-
ment. The biofuel from microalgae was then compared to petrol or
other biofuels. In the research by Björnsson and Prade [33], the biogas
produced from grass-clover was upgraded, compressed, spiked with
propane and delivered to vehicle filling stations via the natural gas grid
to be used as vehicle fuels.
The utilization of biogas energy for household consumption in-
cludes cooking, heating and lighting [27]. Nhu et al. [36] utilized the
biogas produced for household cooking as a substitute for liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG). As for the study done by Jury et al. [34], the
produced biogas was injected into the natural gas grid for different
possible uses. While Wang et al. [28] used the gas-fired power in the
biogas production process to burn the self-produced natural gas (NG),
which reduced the greenhouse gas emissions leading to a more sus-
tainable process. However, some of the reviewed studies did not specify
the end use of the biogas produced.
1.8. Digestate utilization
Digestate has usually been utilized for agricultural production as
organic fertilizer, plant growing media and soil amendment. The di-
gestate can substitute artificial mineral fertilizers because of the ni-
trogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) content in the digestate.
From all the reviewed studies, as shown in Table 1, digestate is reused
as organic fertilizer, replacing chemical fertilizers in the field. The
spreading of digestate depends on the plant nutrient requirement at the
369
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
agricultural area [18,91]. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and
nitrogen may occur during digestate storage and from land application
[24,25,92,93]. Recovery of biogas by-products from enclosed digestate
storage was identified to be essential for sustainable digestate man-
agement [19,94].
Chen and Chen [23] examined the life-cycle production process of
household biogas digestion coupled to the agricultural sector. The uti-
lization of the by-products in persimmon cultivation benefitted per-
simmon growth and created a highly-recycling chain of resources. The
digestate was used as base fertilizer for early fertilization at tree roots
and as top-dressing at maturation phase. Chen et al. [22], in their study
on life-cycle energy production and emissions mitigation by compre-
hensive biogas-digestate utilization reported that a tradeoff between
energy and environmental performance can be observed through sub-
stitution of digestate for top-dressing, base fertilizers and the applica-
tion to seed soaking. Digestate has also been utilized in the aquaculture;
for example, Nhu et al. [36] applied the manure-based digestate as base
fertilizer for fish culturing. While in a study done by Zhang et al. [51],
the solid digestate was dried by natural drying and used as animal
bedding materials.
1.9. Impact categories
Different scopes and impact assessment methods in the LCA fra-
mework were applied in the reviewed papers. Most of the studies which
assessed the environmental performance of the biogas system focused
only on impacts at the midpoint level, for example, acidification, eu-
trophication, eco-toxicity, ozone depletion, fossil depletion and climate
change. A few studies included land use category in their impact as-
sessment. Land use is an important indicator, particularly in biogas
systems based on crops or terrestrial biomass resources, which may give
impacts on biodiversity and habitat conservation.
Several studies assessed the three damage categories (endpoint
impacts) namely; human health, resources depletion and ecosystem
quality using the life cycle impact assessment method, Eco-indicator 99.
Characterization factors were used to convert and combine the LCI
results into representative indicators of impacts on the three areas of
protection [95]. However, the endpoint approach has high un-
certainties [96] because the impacts which cannot be modeled will not
be considered [10]. Endpoints are referred to the end of the cause-effect
chain and used to aggregate the impact of stressors with different
modes of action. Modeling the cause-effect chain up to the endpoint
stage will make the indicator more environmentally relevant but leads
to high uncertainties due to lack of robust models and data. This un-
certainty may lead to deceptive interpretation and limit the possibilities
to compare between different studies [15].
Some studies which mainly focused on greenhouse gases and energy
balance, evaluated the greenhouse gas emissions, global warming po-
tential (GWP), and greenhouse gas mitigation potential (GMP).
Cumulative energy demand (CED), cumulative exergy demand (CExD),
net energy gain (NEG) and primary energy demand (PED). These in-
dicators were estimated in several studies to assess the energy perfor-
mance of biogas production. According to Bosch et al. [97], CED and
CExD provided a valuable assessment of the energy efficiency of the
biogas production system compared to the natural gas system. Many
studies on biogas production showed that the energy produced from
biogas contributes lesser greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil
fuels [34,98,99]. Bacenetti et al. [37] suggested that efficient utilization
of the cogenerated heat and minimization of methane emissions along
with electricity self-consumption were the main factors to improve the
CED and GHG emission performances.
In brief, a comprehensive LCA study could be adopted for the eva-
luation of biogas system which broadens our understanding of the en-
ergy and environmental aspects of the system's operation. The impacts
of the product towards the environment, human and natural resources
could be identified and measured at every specific stage of the process.
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374

Thus, future system enhancement and optimization can be im-

plemented based on the LCA perspective. At this point, the LCA of
biogas system is a crucial initiative in order to ensure the environmental
sustainability of the products as a whole. To date, the increasing
number of studies indirectly shows the increasing concerns on sus-
tainable development. From the previous LCA studies which were re-
viewed in this paper, we can see that a large number of LCA studies on
biogas system were located in European countries. Less than 30% of the
studies were undertaken in Asian countries, out of which none were in
Malaysia. Since biogas is one of the emerging renewable energy sources
in Malaysia, the LCA approach could henceforth support the production
of cleaner and more sustainable energy.
Fig. 6. Status of palm oil mill effluent treatment in Malaysian palm oil mills in
2011. Adapted from Refs. [110,111].
2. Emerging biogas production in Malaysia

Biogas is said to be a clean, safe and sustainable product. The uti-
lization of renewable energy sources for substituting fossil fuels has
become one of the important policies of the Malaysian government
[100,101]. There is an abundant supply of feedstock for bioenergy
production since Malaysia has five major agricultural crops: oil palm,
rubber, rice, cocoa and coconut. The oil palm industry generates the
highest waste for the purpose of power generation which is about 59.8
million tonnes followed by paddy (2.14 million tonnes) [102,103]. It is
also estimated that 80% of the total biomass energy potential was from
palm oil waste [104,105]. Like the other countries around the world,
Malaysia has also utilized its locally available biomass resources to
reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Following that, palm oil is the most
common harvest in Malaysia, hence, it has more potential and is the
more feasible source for bioenergy production.
The palm oil industry is the biggest biomass producer in Malaysia,
as it is bestowed with a huge supply of by-products that are readily
available to be used as an energy source [6]. The palm oil industry
shares the benefits provided by the Sustainable Energy Development
Authority (SEDA), a statutory body which has been established to assist
and monitor renewable energy growth in the country. Besides, one of
the mandates of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) is also to de-
velop bio-resources production throughout the palm oil industry [106].
The wastes produced at the palm oil mills (e.g. empty fruit bunch (EFB),
palm fiber and shell) are converted into bioenergy and have been uti-
lized on-site to provide energy for the mill operations. Palm oil mills
also produce the palm oil mill effluent (POME), which has recently been
expanded as a source of energy in Malaysia due to its abundance in all
palm oil mills. POME is a great potential source for bioenergy as it has
high organic carbon content and chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the
form of carbohydrates, proteins and lipids [107,108]. The character-
istics of POME in Malaysia are shown in Table 2.
Malaysia has become one of the largest producers in the world of
palm oil as bioenergy feedstock [101,110,111]. In 2011, there were 55
mills out of the total 426 palm oil mills operated in Malaysia that had
installed biogas plants [110]. However, only two of those plants were
connected to the grid, whereas the electricity generated by rest of the
Table 2
Characteristics of POME in Malaysia.
Source: [109].
Parameters Unit Value (average)
Temperature °C 85
pH – 4.2
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/L 25 000
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L 51 000
Total Solid (TS) mg/L 40 000
Suspended Solid (SS) mg/L 18 000
Total Volatile Solid (TVS) mg/L 34 000
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH3N) mg/L 35
Total Nitrogen mg/L 750
Oil and grease mg/L 6000
biogas plants were used only for mill operation. Fig. 6 shows the de-
velopment of biogas plants in palm oil mills throughout Malaysia in
2011. Most of the palm oil mills in Malaysia installed covered anaerobic
digester system and there are still a number of mills investing in closed
anaerobic digester tanks. The methane generated from covered anae-
robic ponds was lower than in closed anaerobic digester tanks. There-
fore, most of the mills flare the biogas produced to atmosphere instead
of capturing it for energy generation.
Nevertheless, with the enhancement in anaerobic digester tech-
nology of POME, the palm oil industry can be foreseen to continue its
growing trend in future and POME can potentially become a sustainable
source for biogas in Malaysia. Approximately 0.7 m3 of POME is gen-
erated for every tonne of fresh fruit bunch (FFB) processed and every
tonne of treated POME can generate about 28 m3 of biogas [6]. In terms
of methane production, about 2.4 tonnes of methane gas can be derived
from POME in a year and this number is equivalent to about 3.4 million
liters of diesel, in comparison to the calorific value and the estimated
energy potential generated is about 13 600 MWh of electricity [110].
Since the wastes produced at the palm oil mills like EFB, palm fiber and
shell can be converted into bioenergy, these huge sources of renewable
energy can be utilized and the appropriate waste management in palm
oil mill can provide a clean environment as well.
3. The potential and perspective of LCA of biogas production in
Malaysia
The government has taken many initiatives to promote green and
sustainable development (Fig. 7). Accordingly, the Ministry of Energy,
Green Technology and Water (KeTTHA) has emphasized the develop-
ment of green technologies to protect the environment alongside in-
dustrial development. The feed-in tariff (FiT) mechanism which is ad-
ministered by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA)
has been implemented to promote the export of electricity as a form of
investment as well as to encourage the use of renewable energy instead
of the conventional fossil energy [112,113]. In 2001, the Small Re-
newable Energy Program (SREP) was implemented to promote small-
scale renewable electricity in Malaysia, which allowed the renewable
energy-based power producer to sell its generated electricity to the
national grid at a maximum capacity of 10 MW [114,115]. As of 2012,
two palm oil biogas plants were connected to the grid with a total ca-
pacity of 3.25 MW [110]. Under the Promotion of Investments Act
1986, incentives like granting of Pioneer Status and Investment of Tax
Allowance (ITA) were offered to companies that used renewable re-
sources to generate energy.
Malaysia had also participated in the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. The implementation of
CDM allows the developing countries to gain profit by trading certified
emission reductions (CERs) to the developed countries. Until 2011,
there were 36 CDM registered biogas projects from the Malaysian palm
oil industry [110]. Through this program, palm oil millers could reduce
the greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time, they could also

370
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
Fig. 7. The government's initiatives towards sustainable development.
trade the CERs or carbon credits through capture of the methane re-
leased by POME [110,114]. Various research and development efforts
in green and sustainable technology have been carried out by both
public and private institutions. The government continuously shows its
support by providing research funding through the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). In addition, the Malaysian gov-
ernment also provides a financial incentive that benefits the private
companies through the Green Technology Financing Scheme (GTFS).
The maximum financing amount offered to green technology producers
and users are RM100 million per company (tenure up to 15 years) and
RM10 million per company (tenure up to 10 years) respectively [116].
In order to obtain energy efficiency and renewable energy in sus-
tainable ways with high commercial return, the government had also
introduced several energy-related policies and acts in Malaysia;
Petroleum Development Act 1974, National Petroleum Policy 1975,
National Energy Policy 1979, National Depletion Policy 1980, Four Fuel
Diversification Policy 1981, Electricity Supply Act 1990 (Amendment
2010), Gas Supply Act 1993, Five Fuel Diversification Policy 1999,
Energy Commission Act 2001 (Amendment 2010), National Biofuel
Policy 2005, National Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan 2009
and Renewable Energy Act 2011 [102]. All these energy-related po-
licies and acts were introduced to ensure future energy security and
stability and at the same time to balance the utilization of oil, gas,
hydroelectric power and coal. The transition of attention towards di-
versification of energy sources, energy security and later, environ-
mental conservation, can be seen in the proclamation of policies and
acts that include renewable and sustainable energy features. Newly
developed policies have continuously been introduced and several
changes and realignments of energy policies have been made. These
initiatives implying the commitment of the government to shifting to-
wards renewable energy were required to meet the increasing demand
as well as to conserve both energy security and the environment.
The current plan aims for sustainability and emission reduction in
energy supply and to create public awareness of the importance of
sustainability and clean technology. To achieve these aims and to face
the existing challenges towards a green future, more research has to be
conducted and initiated by the policy and decision makers. As for
biogas, the optimization of the biogas systems as a whole could be
performed by implementing the LCA on biogas production. Previous
studies from other countries, as reviewed in this paper, have shown that
371
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
LCA of bioenergy performance could broaden our understanding of the
system's operation in terms of energy and environmental aspects.
Materials and energy are consumed and released throughout the biogas
production process. Therefore, a holistic approach to assess the en-
vironmental performance of biogas deployment is necessary to identify
and locate where overall environmental sustainability could be further
enhanced [19]. The LCA studies could assist the stakeholders in eval-
uating the environmental profiles of their product systems.
In the overview of the green potential of palm biomass in Malaysia
by Ng et al. [114], it was reported that LCA activities have been re-
cognized in 2006 under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006–2010). SIRIM
Berhad, a premier industrial research and technology organization in
Malaysia has developed the National Life Cycle Inventory Database
project in collaboration with Japanese Standards Association. The
project facilitates the LCAs development in production and manu-
facturing processes. Accordingly, the Malaysian palm oil industry has
been the most active sector working on LCA projects and there have
been at least five studies on the LCA of palm oil. From the studies that
have been done, it was found that POME contributes up to 50% of the
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of palm oil [117,118]. Since then,
installation of methane capture facilities in the mills starting to gain
attention, to reduce the carbon footprint. There are also several LCA
projects that have been carried out in various areas, including in waste
management, petroleum, petrochemicals, agro-industry, utilities, da-
tabase development and impact assessment [119].
Furthermore, the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) had also con-
ducted several LCA studies on Malaysian palm oil which covered the
cradle-to-grave analysis starting from the oil palm seedlings to the
production and use of palm biodiesel [120–124]. Gate-to-gate studies of
an oil palm seedling were also carried out to determine the greenhouse
gas contribution by the subsystem in the oil palm supply chain
[117,125]. However, none of these studies had included the biogas
production system phase in the LCA because the biogas production is
still considered at a very nascent stage in Malaysia though with huge
potential. Many of the LCA studies and projects have been conducted by
SIRIM and MPOB, in particular, which shows the way forward. The
government has provided a great effort, commitment and support to-
wards sustainable environment and resource management through
green policies, schemes and funding programs. Therefore, it can be a
potential driving force for increasing the number of LCA studies in the
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
country on biogas system.
As mentioned earlier, increasing development of biogas plants in
Malaysian palm oil mills has been observed to reduce the operational
emissions. Even though the total biogas plants installed in palm oil mill
is still less than 50%, the establishment of biogas plants shows a great
effort towards green development as well as to meet the drive for low
carbon systems and technologies [126]. In addition to that, the Prime
Minister of Malaysia pledged on a conditional voluntary target of 40%
reduction in CO2 per unit of gross domestic production (GDP) by 2020
from a 2005 baseline at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to
the United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention
(UNFCCC) in Copenhagen [127]. Although existing policies point to-
wards sustainability and security in energy supply, an LCA approach in
biogas system is needed because it could certainly create a great op-
portunity towards sustainable development in the future.
4. Conclusions
Biogas production is one of the best alternative solutions for waste
management particularly in developing countries [128]. Malaysia like
other countries around the world started to make a shift towards re-
newable energy deployment replacing the running out of fossil fuels
sources. As one of the largest producer and exporter of palm oil biomass
sources for bioenergy production, there is an urgent need to thoroughly
ensure the sustainability of biogas production from POME. Previous
studies from other countries show that the evaluation of biogas systems
using life cycle perspective could provide an enhancement to optimize
the biogas system. Thus, with various initiatives taken by the Malaysian
government towards green and sustainable development, the LCA ap-
proach on biogas production of POME particularly, is important and
will yield interesting results for improvement of the environmental
profile.
Acknowledgement
Marlia M. Hanafiah was funded by the research grant (DIP-2017-
006).
References
[1] IEA Statistics, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion-Highlights, IEA, Paris,
2011http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf , Accessed date: 16
October 2016.
[2] J.E. Mason, World energy analysis: H 2 now or later? Energy Policy 35 (2) (2007)
1329-1315.
[3] D.L. Klass, Biomass for renewable energy and fuels, Encyclopedia of Energy 1 (1)
(2004) 212-193.
[4] V. Nagy, E. Szabó, Biogas from organic wastes, studia universitatis vasile goldis
arad, Seria Stiintele Vietii 21 (4) (2011) 891-887.
[5] M.Y.M. Ali, M.M. Hanafiah, Y.H. Wen, M. Idris, N.I.H.A. Aziz, A.A. Halim,
K.E. Lee, Biogas production from different substrates under anaerobic conditions,
3rd International Conference on Agricultural and Medical Sciences, CAMS-2015,
2015, pp. 54–56.
[6] T. Chuah, A. Wan Azlina, Y. Robiah, R. Omar, Biomass as the renewable energy
sources in Malaysia: an overview, Int. J. Green Energy 3 (3) (2006) 346-323.
[7] N.I.H.A. Aziz, M.M. Hanafiah, The potential of palm oil mill effluent (POME) as a
renewable energy source, J Green Energy 1 (2) (2017) 323–346.
[8] S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate environmental impacts of
bioenergy projects, J. Sustain. Energy & Environ. Special Issue 35 (1) (2011)
35–38.
[9] I. Samson-Bręk, Application of the life cycle assessment (LCA) method to the es-
timation of environmental impact of the generation of biogas as an engine fuel,
Archiwum Motoryzacji 2 (2011) 69–79.
[10] G. Finnveden, M.Z. Hauschild, T. Ekvall, J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, S. Hellweg, et al.,
Recent developments in life cycle assessment, J. Environ. Manag. 91 (1) (2009)
21-1.
[11] ISO 14040, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and
Framework, British Standards Institution, London, 2006.
[12] ISO 14044. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements
and Guidelines 2006; European Committee for Standardization.
[13] A. Fusi, J. Bacenetti, M. Fiala, A. Azapagic, Life cycle environmental impacts of
electricity from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion, Frontiers in
Bioengineering and Biotechnology 4 (2016) 17-1.
372
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
[14] G. Sorda, Y. Sunak, R. Madlener, An agent-based spatial simulation to evaluate the
promotion of electricity from agricultural biogas plants in Germany, Ecol. Econ. 89
(2013) 60-43.
[15] F. Cherubini, A.H. Strømman, Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of
the art and future challenges, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2) (2011) 451-437.
[16] O. Hijazi, S. Munro, B. Zerhusen, M. Effenberger, Review of life cycle assessment
for biogas production in Europe, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 1300-
1291.
[17] W. Chaya, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in
Thailand, J. Clean. Prod. 15 (15) (2007) 1463–1468.
[18] M. Poeschl, S. Ward, P. Owende, Environmental impacts of biogas
deployment–Part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process
emissions to air, J. Clean. Prod. 24 (2012) 183-168.
[19] M. Poeschl, S. Ward, P. Owende, Environmental impacts of biogas
deployment–Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization
pathways, J. Clean. Prod. 24 (10) (2012) 201-184.
[20] M. Berglund, P. Börjesson, Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of
biogas production, Biomass Bioenergy 30 (3) (2006) 266-254.
[21] M. Stucki, N. Jungbluth, M. Leuenberger, Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas
Production from Different Substrates, ESU Services Ltd Commissioned by
Bundesamt für Energie, Forschungsprogram Biomasse, Switzerland, 2011.
[22] S. Chen, B. Chen, D. Song, Life-cycle energy production and emissions mitigation
by comprehensive biogas–digestate utilization, Bioresour. Technol. 114 (6) (2012)
364-357.
[23] B. Chen, S. Chen, Life cycle assessment of coupling household biogas production to
agricultural industry: a case study of biogas-linked persimmon cultivation and
processing system, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 716-707.
[24] S. Claus, F. Taube, B. Wienforth, N. Svoboda, K. Sieling, H. Kage, et al., Life-cycle
assessment of biogas production under the environmental conditions of northern
Germany: greenhouse gas balance, J. Agric. Sci. 152 (S1) (2014) 181-172.
[25] L. Lijó, S. González-García, J. Bacenetti, M. Fiala, G. Feijoo, J.M. Lema, et al., Life
cycle assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic Co-digestion of
pig slurry and energy crops, Renew. Energy 68 (2014) 635-625.
[26] J. Bacenetti, D. Duca, M. Negri, A. Fusi, M. Fiala, Mitigation strategies in the agro-
food sector: the anaerobic digestion of tomato puree by-products. An Italian case
study, Sci. Total Environ. 526 (2015) 97-88.
[27] T. Vu, D. Vu, L.S. Jensen, S.G. Sommer, S. Bruun, Life cycle assessment of biogas
production in small-scale household digesters in Vietnam, Asian-Australas. J.
Anim. Sci. 28 (5) (2015) 729-716.
[28] Q.L. Wang, W. Li, X. Gao, S.J. Li, Life cycle assessment on biogas production from
straw and its sensitivity analysis, Bioresour. Technol. 201 (0) (2016) 214-208.
[29] T. Rehl, J. Lansche, J. Müller, Life cycle assessment of energy generation from
biogas - attributional vs. Consequential approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16
(6) (2012) 3775-3766.
[30] D. Dressler, A. Loewen, M. Nelles, Life cycle assessment of the supply and use of
bioenergy: impact of regional factors on biogas production, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 17 (9) (2012) 1115-1104.
[31] P. Collet, A. Hélias, L. Lardon, M. Ras, R.A. Goy, J.P. Steyer, Life-cycle assessment
of microalgae culture coupled to biogas production, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (1)
(2011) 214-207.
[32] A. Cappelli, E. Gigli, F. Romagnoli, S. Simoni, D. Blumberga, M. Palerno, et al., Co-
digestion of macroalgae for biogas production: an lca-based environmental eva-
luation, Energy Procedia 72 (2015) 10–13.
[33] L. Björnsson, T. Prade, Introduction of grass-clover crops as biogas feedstock in
cereal-dominated crop rotations. Part II: effects on greenhouse gas emissions,
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the
Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014). San Francisco, USA, October 2014, pp. 8–10
ISBN:978-0-9882145-7-6.
[34] C. Jury, E. Benetto, D. Koster, B. Schmitt, J. Welfring, Life cycle assessment of
biogas production by monofermentation of energy crops and injection into the
natural gas grid, Biomass Bioenergy 34 (1) (2010) 66-54.
[35] J. Langlois, J.F. Sassi, G. Jard, J.P. Steyer, J.P. Delgenes, A. Hélias, Life cycle
assessment of biomethane from offshore‐cultivated seaweed, Biofuels Bioprod.
Bior. 6 (4) (2012) 404-387.
[36] T.T. Nhu, J. Dewulf, P. Serruys, S. Huysveld, C.V. Nguyen, P. Sorgeloos, et al.,
Resource usage of integrated pig–biogas–fish system: partitioning and substitution
within attributional life cycle assessment, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102 (2015)
38-27.
[37] J. Bacenetti, M. Negri, M. Fiala, S. González-García, Anaerobic digestion of dif-
ferent feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas
process, Sci. Total Environ. 463 (2013) 551-541.
[38] M. Lauer, M. Dotzauer, C. Hennig, M. Lehmann, E. Nebel, J. Postel, et al., Flexible
power generation scenarios for biogas plants operated in Germany: impacts on
economic viability and ghg emissions, Int. J. Energy Res. 41 (1) (2017) 80-63.
[39] F.C. Ertem, P. Neubauer, S. Junne, Environmental life cycle assessment of biogas
production from marine macroalgal feedstock for the substitution of energy crops,
J. Clean. Prod. 140 (2017) 985-977.
[40] A. Yasar, R. Rasheed, A.B. Tabinda, A. Tahir, F. Sarwar, Life cycle assessment of a
medium commercial scale biogas plant and nutritional assessment of effluent
slurry, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 371-364.
[41] C. Iordan, C. Lausselet, F. Cherubini, Life-cycle assessment of a biogas power plant
with application of different climate metrics and inclusion of near-term climate
forcers, J. Environ. Manag. 184 (2016) 527-517.
[42] E.L. Barrera, E. Rosa, H. Spanjers, O. Romero, S. De Meester, J. Dewulf, A com-
parative assessment of anaerobic digestion power plants as alternative to lagoons
for vinasse treatment: life cycle assessment and exergy analysis, J. Clean. Prod.
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
113 (2016) 471-459.
[43] F.C. Ertem, J. Martínez-Blanco, M. Finkbeiner, P. Neubauer, S. Junne, Life cycle
assessment of flexibly fed biogas processes for an improved demand-oriented
biogas supply, Bioresour. Technol. 219 (2016) 544-536.
[44] O. Eriksson, M. Bisaillon, M. Haraldsson, J. Sundberg, Enhancement of biogas
production from food waste and sewage sludge–environmental and economic life
cycle performance, J. Environ. Manag. 175 (2016) 39-33.
[45] D. Styles, E.M. Dominguez, D. Chadwick, Environmental balance of the of the UK
biogas sector: an evaluation by consequential life cycle assessment, Sci. Total
Environ. 560 (2016) 253-241.
[46] F. Van Stappen, M. Mathot, V. Decruyenaere, A. Loriers, A. Delcour, V. Planchon,
et al., Consequential environmental life cycle assessment of a farm-scale biogas
plant, J. Environ. Manag. 175 (2016) 32-20.
[47] W.G. Mezzullo, M.C. Mcmanus, G.P. Hammond, Life cycle assessment of a small-
scale Anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 664-
657.
[48] L. Lijo, S. González-García, J. Bacenetti, M. Fiala, G. Feijoo, M.T. Moreira,
Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion, J.
Clean. Prod. 72 (2014) 34-23.
[49] A. Whiting, A. Azapagic, Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity
and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion, Energy 70 (2014) 193-181.
[50] B. Torquati, S. Venanzi, A. Ciani, F. Diotallevi, V. Tamburi, Environmental sus-
tainability and economic benefits of dairy farm biogas energy production: a case
study in umbria, Sustainability 6 (10) (2014) 6713-6696.
[51] S. Zhang, X.T. Bi, R. Clift, Life cycle analysis of a biogas-centred integrated dairy
farm-greenhouse system in British columbia, Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 93
(2015) 30-18.
[52] H. Tong, Y. Shen, J. Zhang, C.H. Wang, T.S. Ge, Y.W. Tong, A comparative life
cycle assessment on four waste-to-energy scenarios for food waste generated in
eateries, Appl. Energy 225 (2018) 1143–1157.
[53] G. D'imporzano, R. Pilu, L. Corno, F. Adani, L. Arundo Donax, Can substitute
traditional energy crops for more efficient, environmentally-friendly production of
biogas: a life cycle assessment approach, Bioresour. Technol. 267 (2018) 249–256.
[54] M.A. Nasution, D.S. Wibawa, T. Ahamed, R. Noguchi, Comparative environmental
impact evaluation of palm oil mill effluent treatment using a life cycle assessment
approach: a case study based on composting and a combination for biogas tech-
nologies in North sumatera of Indonesia, J. Clean. Prod. 184 (2018) 1028–1040.
[55] R. Chowdhury, J. Sadhukhan, M. Traverso, P.L. Keen, Effects of residence time on
life cycle assessment of bioenergy production from dairy manure, Bioresour.
Technol. Reports 4 (2018) 57–65.
[56] Y. Wang, X. Wu, X. Tong, T. Li, F. Wu, Life cycle assessment of large-scale and
household biogas plants in northwest China, J. Clean. Prod. 192 (2018) 221–235.
[57] K. Koido, H. Takeuchi, T. Hasegawa, Life cycle environmental and economic
analysis of regional-scale food-waste biogas production with digestate nutrient
management for fig fertilisation, J. Clean. Prod. 190 (2018) 552–562.
[58] O. Taylan, D. Kaya, A.A. Bakhsh, A. Demirbas, Bioenergy life cycle assessment and
management in energy generation, Energy Explor. Exploit. 36 (1) (2018) 166–181.
[59] A. Giwa, Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of biogas production
from marine algae and cattle manure biorefineries, Bioresour. Technol. 244 (2017)
1470–1479.
[60] J. Lansche, J. Müller, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biogas versus dung com-
bustion household cooking systems in developing countries–a case study in
Ethiopia, J. Clean. Prod. 165 (2017) 828–835.
[61] F.R. Ramírez-Arpide, G.N. Demirer, C. Gallegos-Vázquez, G. Hernández-Eugenio,
V.H. Santoyo-Cortés, T. Espinosa-Solares, Life cycle assessment of biogas pro-
duction through anaerobic Co-digestion of nopal cladodes and dairy cow manure,
J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 2313–2322.
[62] A.A. Longati, O. Cavalett, A.J. Cruz, Life cycle assessment of vinasse biogas pro-
duction in sugarcane biorefineries, dlm. (pnyt.), Computer Aided Chemical
Engineering 40 (2017) 2017–2022.
[63] M. Seghetta, D. Romeo, M. D'este, M. Alvarado-Morales, I. Angelidaki,
S. Bastianoni, M. Thomsen, Seaweed as innovative feedstock for energy and fee-
d–evaluating the impacts through a life cycle assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 150
(2017) 1–15.
[64] J. Edwards, M. Othman, E. Crossin, S. Burn, Anaerobic Co-digestion of municipal
food waste and sewage sludge: a comparative life cycle assessment in the context
of a waste service provision, Bioresour. Technol. 223 (2017) 237–249.
[65] Y. Chen, G. Yang, S. Sweeney, Y. Feng, Household biogas use in rural China: a
study of opportunities and constraints, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (1) (2010)
549-545.
[66] X. Wei, B. Chen, Y. Qu, C. Lin, G. Chen, Emergy analysis for ‘four in one’peach
production system in beijing, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 4 (3) (2009)
958-946.
[67] F. Van Foreest, Perspectives for Biogas in Europe, Oxford Institute for Energy
Studies Oxford, United Kingdom, 2012.
[68] M. Lebuhn, B. Munk, M. Effenberger, Agricultural biogas production in Germany -
from practice to microbiology basics, Energy Sustain. Soc. 4 (1) (2014) 10.
[69] Z.Y. Chen, D.W. Shi, E.X. Wang, Development of the application of resource uti-
lization technology in, Agricultural Waste, China Population, Resources and
Environment 20 (12) (2010) 116-112.
[70] C. Buratti, M. Barbanera, F. Fantozzi, Assessment of GHG emissions of biomethane
from energy cereal crops in umbria, Italy, App. Energy 108 (2013) 136-128.
[71] E. Dinuccio, P. Balsari, F. Gioelli, S. Menardo, Evaluation of the biogas pro-
ductivity potential of some Italian agro-industrial biomasses, Bioresour. Technol.
101 (10) (2010) 3783-3780.
[72] P. Zhang, C.C. Chang, R. Wang, S. Zhang, Agricultural Waste, Water Environ. Res.
373
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
86 (10) (2014) 1415-1387.
[73] C.T.T. Thu, P.H. Cuong, N. Van Chao, N.X. Trach, S.G. Sommer, Manure man-
agement practices on biogas and non-biogas pig farms in developing coun-
tries–using livestock farms in Vietnam as an example, J. Clean. Prod. 27 (2012)
71-64.
[74] S.A. Gebrezgabher, M.P. Meuwissen, B.A. Prins, A.G.O. Lansink, Economic ana-
lysis of anaerobic digestion - a case of green power biogas plant in The
Netherlands, NJAS-wageningen, J. Life Sci. 57 (2) (2010) 115-109.
[75] J.B. Holm-Nielsen, T. Al Seadi, P. Oleskowicz-Popiel, The future of anaerobic di-
gestion and biogas utilization, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (22) (2009) 5484-5478.
[76] I.M. Nasir, T.I.M. Ghazi, R. Omar, A. Idris, Anaerobic digestion of cattle manure:
influence of inoculum concentration, Int. J. Eng. Technol. 10 (1) (2013) 26-22.
[77] K. Rajendran, S. Aslanzadeh, M.J. Taherzadeh, Household biogas digesters-a re-
view, Energies 5 (8) (2012) 2942-2911.
[78] A. Khalid, M. Arshad, M. Anjum, T. Mahmood, L. Dawson, The anaerobic digestion
of solid organic waste, Waste manage 31 (8) (2011) 1744-1737.
[79] J. Mata-Alvarez, S. Mace, P. Llabres, Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes.
An overview of research achievements and perspectives, Bioresour. Technol. 74
(1) (2000) 16-3.
[80] Z. Fodor, J.J. Klemeš, Waste as alternative fuel–minimising emissions and effluents
by advanced design, Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 90 (3) (2012) 284-263.
[81] R.M. Jingura, R. Matengaifa, Optimization of biogas production by anaerobic di-
gestion for sustainable energy development in Zimbabwe, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (5) (2009) 1120-1116.
[82] C. Ludwig, S. Hellweg, S. Stucki, Municipal Solid Waste Management: Strategies
and Technologies for Sustainable Solutions, Springer Science & Business Media,
2012.
[83] H.M. El-Mashad, R. Zhang, Biogas production from Co-digestion of dairy manure
and food waste, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (11) (2010) 4028-4021.
[84] D. Elango, M. Pulikesi, P. Baskaralingam, V. Ramamurthi, S. Sivanesan,
Production of biogas from municipal solid waste with domestic sewage, J. Hazard
Mater. 141 (1) (2007) 304-301.
[85] R. Li, S. Chen, X. Li, Biogas production from anaerobic Co-digestion of food waste
with dairy manure in a two-phase digestion system, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
160 (2) (2010) 654-643.
[86] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, Missed environmental benefits of biogas production in
Zambia, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 1209-1200.
[87] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, Y. Kafwembe, Urban commercial biogas power plant
model for Zambian towns, Renew. Energy 103 (2017) 14-1.
[88] B. Weidema, H. Wenzel, C. Petersen, K. Hansen, The Product, Functional Unit and
Reference Flows in LCA, Environmental News, Danish Environmental Protection
Agency, 2004.
[89] M.A. Curran, Life Cycle Assessment, Wiley Online Library, 2008.
[90] J. Sawin, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century: Renewables
2012 Global Status Report, REN21 Secretariat, 2011.
[91] T. Rehl, J. Müller, Life cycle assessment of biogas digestate processing technolo-
gies, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 56 (1) (2011) 104-192.
[92] T.L. Hansen, S.G. Sommer, S. Gabriel, T.H. Christensen, Methane production
during storage of anaerobically digested municipal organic waste, J. Environ.
Qual. 35 (3) (2006) 836-830.
[93] J. Møller, A. Boldrin, T.H. Christensen, Anaerobic digestion and digestate use:
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution, Waste Manag.
Res. 27 (2009) 824-813.
[94] M. Pöschl, S. Ward, P. Owende, Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas
production and utilization pathways, Appl. Energy 87 (11) (2010) 3321-3305.
[95] M.A. Curran, Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice, (2006).
[96] O. Jolliet, M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, G. Rebitzer, et al., Impact
2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
8 (6) (2003) 330-324.
[97] M.E. Bösch, S. Hellweg, M.A. Huijbregts, R. Frischknecht, Applying cumulative
exergy demand (CEXD) indicators to the ecoinvent database, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 12 (3) (2007) 190-181.
[98] P. Börjesson, M. Berglund, Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems-Part
I: fuel-cycle emissions, Biomass Bioenergy 30 (5) (2006) 485-469.
[99] W. Edelmann, U. Baier, H. Engeli, Environmental aspects of the anaerobic diges-
tion of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes and of solid agricultural
wastes, Water Sci. Technol. 52 (1–2) (2005) 208-203.
[100] S.E. Hosseini, M.A. Wahid, Feasibility study of biogas production and utilization as
a source of renewable energy in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19 (2013)
462-454.
[101] S.H. Shuit, K.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, A.H. Kamaruddin, Oil palm biomass as a sustainable
energy source: a Malaysian case study, Energy 34 (9) (2009) 1235-1225.
[102] A. Bujang, C. Bern, T. Brumm, Summary of energy demand and renewable energy
policies in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53 (11) (2016) 1467-1459.
[103] R. Leete, Malaysia Generating Renewable Energy from Palm Oil Wastes, United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Malaysia, 2007.
[104] K.M. Poh, H.W. Kong, Renewable energy in Malaysia: a policy analysis, Energy
Sustain. Dev. 6 (3) (2002) 39-31.
[105] Aziz, N. I. H. A., Hanafiah, M. M., Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent
(POME) using bio-methane potential (BMP) test, AIP Conference Proceedings
(2018) hlm. 020026.
[106] C.S. Goh, K.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, S. Bhatia, Bio-ethanol from lignocellulose: Status,
perspectives and challenges in Malaysia, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (13) (2010)
4841-4834.
[107] M. Basri, S. Yacob, M. Hassan, Y. Shirai, M. Wakisaka, M. Zakaria, et al., Improved
biogas production from palm oil mill effluent by a scaled-down anaerobic
N.I.H.A. Aziz, et al.
treatment process, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26 (3) (2010) 514-505.
[108] N. Oswal, P. Sarma, S. Zinjarde, A. Pant, Palm oil mill effluent treatment by a
tropical marine yeast, Bioresour. Technol. 85 (1) (2002) 37-35.
[109] Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), Overview of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry
2009 (2009).
[110] M.J. Chin, P.E. Poh, B.T. Tey, E.S. Chan, K.L. Chin, Biogas from palm oil mill
effluent (POME): opportunities and challenges from Malaysia's perspective,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26 (6) (2013) 726-717.
[111] The Star, Malaysia Produced 80m Tonnes Oil Palm Biomass in 2011, (2012)
http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2012/09/21/malaysia-
produced-80m-tonnes-oil-oil-palm-biomass-in-2011/ , Accessed date: 2 November
2016.
[112] S.C. Chua, T.H. Oh, Green progress and prospect in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 15 (6) (2011) 2861-2850.
[113] S.C. Chua, T.H. Oh, W.W. Goh, Feed-in tariff outlook in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 15 (1) (2011) 712-705.
[114] W.P.Q. Ng, H.L. Lam, F.Y. Ng, M. Kamal, J.H.E. Lim, Waste-to-Wealth: green
potential from palm biomass in Malaysia, J. Clean. Prod. 34 (4) (2012) 65-57.
[115] B.K. Sovacool, I.M. Drupady, Examining the small renewable energy power (SREP)
program in Malaysia, Energy Policy 39 (11) (2011) 7256-7244.
[116] Greentech Malaysia, Green Technology Financial Scheme Guideline, (2012)
https://www.gtfs.my/page/gtfs-guideline , Accessed date: 2 November 2016.
[117] Y.M. Choo, H. Muhamad, Z. Hashim, V. Subramaniam, C.W. Puah, Y. Tan,
Determination of GHG contributions by subsystems in the oil palm supply chain
using the LCA approach, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (7) (2011) 681-669.
[118] J. Schmidt, Life Cycle Assessment of Rapeseed Oil and Palm Oil-Part 3: Life Cycle
Inventory of Rapeseed Oil and Palm Oil (PhD Thesis), Department of Planning and
Development: Aalborg University, 2007.
374
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374
[119] SIRIM, LCA projects, http://lcamalaysia.sirim.my/index.php/project, (2016) ,
Accessed date: 25 November 2016.
[120] M. Halimah, H. Zulkifli, S. Vijaya, Y.A. Tan, C.W. Puah, C.L. Chong, et al., Life
cycle assessment of oil palm seedling production (Part 1), J. Oil Palm Res. 22
(2010) 886-878.
[121] C.W. Puah, Y.M. Choo, A.N. Ma, Life cycle assessment for the production and use
of palm biodiesel (Part 5), J. Oil Palm Res. 22 (2010) 933-927.
[122] Y.A. Tan, M. Halimah, H. Zulkifli, S. Vijaya, C.W. Puah, C.L. Chong, et al., Life
cycle assessment of refined palm oil production and fractionation (Part 4), J. Oil
Palm Res. 22 (2010) 926-913.
[123] S. Vijaya, Y.M. Choo, M. Halimah, H. Zulkifli, Y.A. Tan, C.W. Puah, Life cycle
assessment of the production of crude palm oil (Part 3), J. Oil Palm Res. 22 (2010)
903-895.
[124] H. Zulkifli, M. Halimah, K.W. Chan, Y.M. Choo, W. Mohd Basri, Life cycle as-
sessment for oil palm fresh fruit bunch production from continued land use for oil
palm planted on mineral soil (Part 2), J. Oil Palm Res. 22 (3) (2010) 894-887.
[125] M. Halimah, B.S. Ismail, S. Salmijah, Y.A. Tan, Y.M. Choo, A gate-to-gate case
study of the life cycle assessment of an oil palm seedling, Trop. Life Sci. Res. 23 (1)
(2012) 23-15.
[126] N.I.H.A. Aziz, M.M. Hanafiah, M.Y.M. Ali, Sustainable biogas production from
agrowaste and effluents–a promising step for small-scale industry income, Renew.
Energy 132 (2019) 363–369.
[127] C.S. Khor, G. Lalchand, A review on sustainable power generation in Malaysia to
2030: historical perspective, current assessment, and future strategies, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 960-952.
[128] M.M. Hanafiah, M.Y. Mohamed Ali, N.I.H. Abdul Aziz, M.A. Ashraf, A.A. Halim,
K.E. Lee, M. Idris, Biogas production from goat and chicken manure in Malaysia,
Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 15 (3) (2017) 529–535.