Fuel 254 (2019) 115599

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Review article

Renewable bio-jet fuel production for aviation: A review T

a,b,1 a,b,1 c,d,1 a,b,d,e,⁎ a,b,e
Hongjian Wei , Wenzhi Liu , Xinyu Chen , Qing Yang , Jiashuo Li ,
Hanping Chena,b
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China
c
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong Unversity of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China
d
John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
e
China-EU Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China

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

Keywords: Due to excessive greenhouse gas emissions and high dependence on traditional petroleum jet fuel, the sus-
Bio-jet fuel tainable development of the aviation industry has drawn increasing attention worldwide. One of the most
Feedstock promising strategies is to develop and industrialize alternative aviation fuels produced from renewable re-
Production technology sources, e.g. biomass. Renewable bio-jet fuel has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions over their life cycle,
Environmental influence
which make bio-jet fuels an attractive substitution for aviation fuels. This paper provided an overview on the
Economic evaluation
conversion technologies, economic assessment, environmental influence and development status of bio-jet fuels.
Challenges
The results suggested that hydrogenated esters and fatty acids, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis can be the most
promising technologies for bio-jet fuels production in near term. Future works, such as searching for more
suitable feedstock, improving competitiveness for alternative jet fuels, meeting emission reduction targets in
large-scale production and making measures for the indirect impact are needed for further investigation. The
large-scale deployment of bio-jet fuels could achieve significant potentials of both bio-jet fuels production and
CO2 emissions reduction based on future available biomass feedstock.

1. Introduction
Air transport is important for promoting global social contacts and
business. As reported by International Air Transport Association
(IATA), more than 3.8 billion passengers and 54.9 Mt of goods valued at
nearly $5.5 trillion were transported by the air in 2016, representing
about 35% of global trade by value. Forecasts also indicate that the air
passenger numbers will double over the next 20 years [1], which means
that the corresponding consumption of aviation fuel will rise accord-
ingly. In 2012, the global consumption of jet fuel reached 12.48
quadrillion btu, accounting for 12% of global transportation energy
consumption. While jet fuel consumption is projected to grow by an-
other 10 quadrillion btu from 2010 to 2040 [2]. As the biggest user, the
U.S. consumes more than 25% of the world’s total jet fuel annually [3].
In 2016, U.S. jet fuel accounted for 11.6% of the national petroleum
consumption in the transportation sector (5.1 billion barrels petroleum)
[4]. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the
global consumption of jet fuel increased at a 1.5% annual growth rate
as well as the average price of jet fuel would increase at a 2.7% annual
growth rate from 2016 to 2050 [5]. Fuel cost continues to be one of the
main cost for the global airline industry, which accounted for about
27% of all the airline’s operating costs in 2015, and is primarily related
to oil prices [6,7]. It is also worth mentioning that, as the world second
jet fuel consumer, China’s jet fuel consumption keeps growing at an
annual rate of 12% from 2008 to 2013 [3]. In 2016, the domestic
passenger market in China once again witnessed the biggest incre-
mental change in journey numbers, with 37 million more passenger
journeys, which was more than that in the next two fastest-growing
markets domestic United States and domestic India combined. And
China will possibly overtake the United States as the biggest air pas-
senger market by 2029 [8].
For road transport, electric vehicles powered from renewable en-
ergy sources could be an effective substitution of conventional vehicles
propelled by gasoline. Such strategy, however, is not applicable for
aviation industry. To ensure its sustainable development, it is urgent to
develop an alternative renewable fuel to meet the growing demand

⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China. Tel.: 617 961
2963; fax: 617 495 4551.
E-mail address: qyang@hust.edu.cn (Q. Yang).
1
Contributed as the first author.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.06.007
Received 15 January 2019; Received in revised form 15 May 2019; Accepted 4 June 2019
Available online 20 June 2019
0016-2361/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Wei, et al.
while reducing the dependency on fossil fuel. Flights produced 781 Mt
of CO2 in 2015, which amounted to more than 2% of all human-induced
CO2 emissions and 12% of CO2 emissions in the transport sector [9]. In
2008, EU proposed the directive 2008/101/EC, and officially included
aviation carbon emissions into the European Union Emissions Trading
Scheme(EU ETS): starting from 2012, any flight is required to pay for its
carbon emissions when it enters into the EU region. In 2009, IATA put
forward three emission reduction targets of the whole aviation industry,
one of which is to cut net emissions in half by 2050 compared with
2005 [10]. In 2016, the member states of International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) adopted a global carbon offsetting scheme for
international aviation. The scheme is set to commence with a voluntary
period (2021–2026) after which it will become mandatory, and it will
cover approximately 80% of CO2 growth in 2021–2035 [11]. China also
aims to reduce the unit transport turnover CO2 emissions by 4% from
2016 to 2020 [12]. In meeting these standards, it is not enough to rely
only on improving fuel efficiency. Therefore, production of renewable
jet fuel for aviation from biomass is widely researched, for reducing the
carbon emissions and achieving a sustainable development of the
aviation industry.
Biomass is the only renewable energy source that contains carbon,
which can directly absorb CO2 from air to produce organic matter. And
it is widely distributed and largely produced. Technology that em-
ploying biomass as a resource to produce liquid fuel for transportation
has advanced substantially over the past decade and still has significant
potential for improvement in the future [13–17]. For aviation, bio-fuel
not only can decrease dependence on fossil fuel, but also can reduce
emissions over the life cycle, due to the carbon neutral of biomass [18].
The use of sustainable aviation fuels has the potential over their life
cycle to save up to 80% in CO2 emissions [1]. Besides, commercial jet
fuels have a high requirement for the chemical and physical properties.
Bio-jet fuels have low sulfur content, low tailpipe emissions, high
thermal stability, and good cold flow properties [19–21]. In addition,
bio-jet fuels have the advantage over other substitute fuels (e.g.
ethanol) on compatibility with the conventional engine and fuel system:
bio-jet fuels can be used without any engine modification and would
not raise any fuel quality issues [22]. Ethanol is not suitable for the
aviation fuel due to its poor fuel properties. Besides, the biggest pro-
blem is a lack of compatibility with the existing mechanical systems-
upgrading all the flight engines to operate on a new type of fuel would
cost trillion dollars [23]. Some of the bio-jet fuels have been put into
use successfully. It is set by the EU Biofuels Flightpath to produce 2 Mt
biofuels for aviation every year by 2020, which is about 3%–4% of total
jet fuel consumption in Europe [24]. The U.S. Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration (FAA) has also established a goal to provide one billion
gallons of alternative jet fuel to the US annually from 2018 [25]. Sev-
eral airlines such as United, Cathay, FedEx/Southwest, JetBlue, Lufth-
ansa, Alaska Airlines and KLM have reached long-term offtake agree-
ments with biofuel suppliers [26].
Jet fuel is an aviation fuel designed specifically for commercial and
military aircrafts. Conventional jet fuel is produced from the distillation
of crude oil ranging from 205 °C to 260 °C [27]. The compositions of jet
fuel are main C8 to C16 hydrocarbons, and the chemical components are
alkanes, iso-alkanes, naphthenic or naphthenic derivatives and aro-
matic compounds [23]. The content of each component has a direct
relationship with the characteristic of the jet fuel. The high hydrogen-
carbon ratio of alkanes could ensure the energy density of the fuel.
Naphthenes help to reduce the freeze point, which is critical in high-
attitude flying. The aromatics contribute to the lubricity to enhance the
material compatibility and prevent leaks in the seals of some aircraft,
but excessive aromatic will influence the cleanliness of the fuel, so the
content of aromatics should be controlled in a reasonable range
[23,27–29]. Except for the features above, commercial jet fuels also
have strict requirements for other characteristics, including sulfur
content, density, flash point, viscosity, smoke point, naphthalenes, and
conductivity. Table 1 summarizes the jet specifications for typical jet
2
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
fuels for commercial (Jet A/Jet A-1) and military aircrafts (JP-4/JP-5)
in the US [30].
The main technical approaches for biofuel production are re-
presented by the biochemical route and the thermochemical pathway.
For the biochemical route, enzyme and other micro-organisms are
ususlly used to produce biofuel. As for thermochemical route, it can
convert to biofuel from the synthesis gas produced by pyrolysis or ga-
sification technologies [31]. The typical examples are oil-to-jet, Fischer-
Tropsch process, alcohol-to-jet, and sugar-to-jet [32]. Meanwhile, some
researchers are focusing on the synthesis of jet fuel range hydrocarbons
with the lignocellulose derived platform compounds [33–35].
Recently, there are many review papers focusing on bio-jet fuels
production. Hari et al. [36] overviewd the bio-jet fuels production in
three aspects: rounts, opportunities and challenges. In their work, a
section introduced the environmental challenges, such as food scarcity,
soil quality reduction and water availability. However, quantitative
analysis of environmental concern were scant. Meanwhile, with the
increasing concern on environmental issues, the environmental im-
pacts, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water useage and land
use, should draw more attention, which are lacking in previous papers.
On the other hand, Gutiérrez-Antonio et al. [37] reviewed the scientific
and technological advances of hydroprocessing, thermochemical route
and alcohol to jet pathways. David et al. and Liu et al. [27,38] reviewed
different production routes of jet fuel. Gabriel et al. [39] studied the
techno-economics of bio-jet fuels from different feedstocks. However,
the technologies for bio-jet is under rapid development, and new con-
version technologies, such as lignin-to-jet, have not yet been analysised
and compared.
This paper aims to give a general overview of conversion tech-
nology, economic evaluation, environmental influence and develop-
ment status of bio-jet fuels, and summarizes the challenges and op-
portunities that the aviation industry is now facing. Policy suggestions
are also provided for the further development of the aviation alter-
native fuels.
2. Bio-jet fuels production routes
The feedstocks for the production of jet fuel are various and could
be classified in three different categories. The first-generation bio-fuels
are derived from edible crops, such as wheat and corn, which are not
popular now as they compete with the land use and human diet [40].
The second-generation bio-fuels for aviation could be produced from
non-edible oil crops and lignocellulose biomass, typically camelina,
jatropha, used cooking oils (UCOs) and waste animal fats (WAFs). These
feedstack have high content of fatty acids and can be reacted to bio-
fuels through esterification and isomorphism via hydroprocessing [41].
Some co-products from the waste of industrial production process, such
as crude tall oil from the paper making industry and the soapstocks, oil
sediments, acid oils from the edible oil refinery, can also serve as the
feedstock to be hydrogenated to jet fuel [38,42]. Lignocellulose bio-
mass, including wood and forestry residues, agricultural residues, ha-
lophytes, short rotation woody crops (SRWCs), and municipal solid
waste, also can be converted into jet fuel by gasification through Fi-
scher-Tropsch process and/or some other thermochemistry/biochem-
istry routes [43]. Due to its ample production, lignocellulose is con-
sidered as the most appropriate long-term alternative [44]. The third-
generation bio-fuel for aviation is based on algal feedstock, which
contains relatively high oil content, occupies less land than many other
biomass, and is viewed as one of the most promising feedstocks for
biofuels production and solution for CO2 sequestration [45].
Due to the heterogeneous nature of biomass feedstock, such as
moisture content, density and energy content, pretreatment is an im-
portant part of bio-jet fuels production. Except some physical methods,
such as densification and milling, which are usually used to produce
higher energy-density pellet and reduce transport costs, torrefaction
and pyrolysis are two main thermal pretreatment [46]. Under inert
H. Wei, et al. Fuel 254 (2019) 115599

Table 1
Jet Fuel Properties in Specifications.
Specification ASTM D1655 Joint Check List MIL-T-5624 MIL-T-5624

Grade Jet A/A-1 Jet A-1 JP-5 JP-4

Property
a
Aromatics, vol. % Max. 25 22 25.0 25.0
Sulfur, mass % Max. 0.3 0.30 0.40 0.40
Distillation, °C (°F)
IBP Report Report Report
10% Rec Max 205 (4 0 0) 205 (4 0 0) 206 (4 0 3) Report
20% Rec Report Report 100 max
50% Rec Report Report Report 125 max
90% Rec Report Report Report Report
Final BP Max 300 (5 7 5) 300 (5 7 5) 300 (5 7 5) 270
Flash point, °C (°F) Min. 38* (1 0 0) 40* (1 0 4) 60** (1 4 0)
RVP, KPa (pis) 14–21 (2.0–3.0)
Density, kg/m3 775 – 840 775 – 840 788–845
Freezing point, °C (°F) Max −40b ( −4 0) −47 ( −5 3) −46 ( −5 1) −58 ( −7 2)
Viscosity @-20 °C, cs Max 8 8.0 8.5
Specific energy, MJ/kg Min. 42.8 42.8 42.6 42.8
Smoke point, mm or Min. 25 25 19 20.0
Smoke point , mm + Min. 18 19
Naphthalenes, vol. % Max. 3.0 3.0
c
JFTOT @ 260 °C
Tube rating Max. <3 <3 <3 <3
Pressure drop, mm Hg Max. 25 25 25 25
Conductivity, pS/m 50 – 450d 50–450 150 – 600

a
or 25% max + report % hydrogen.
b
Jet A-1 freezing point is −47 °C (-53°F) maximum.
c
ASTM D1655 permits retesting at 245 °C.
d
If conductivity improver is used.
* Flash point by D 56 (Tag).
** Flash point by D 93 (PM).

atmosphere and moderate conditions (200–300 °C), biomass feedstock
can be upgraded to a higher quality biofuel by torrefaction. The results
from recent research suggested that torrefied biomass had lower atomic
O/C and H/C ratios [47,48]. In addition, torrefaction also had an im-
portant influence on the subsequent thermochemical conversions to get
bio-oil. As for fast pyrolysis, thermal decomposition of biomass feed-
stock is performed in the absence of oxygen at about 500 °C to produce
high energy density fuel, commonly known as pyrolysis oil. Then the
intermedia product can be converted to bio-jet fuels by different pro-
cesses.
Table 2 summaries the key conversion step and catalysts used of
different pathways. The synthetic pathway can be classified by feed-
stocks as follows.
2.1. Conversion process of oil feedstock
Different type of oil feedstock has various converting pathways to
jet fuel. The common pathways include the hydrogenated esters and
fatty acids (HEFA) and catalytic hydrothermolysis (CH). The feedstocks
for HEFA are vegetable oils, used cooking oil, and animal fats. While the
feedstocks for CH are algal oils or oil plant.
2.1.1. Hydrogenated esters and fatty acids
HEFA is a process to hydrotreat the triglycerides, saturated or un-
saturated fatty acids in the vegetable oils, used cooking oils and animal
fats to produce bio-jet fuels. The process diagram of HEFA was shown in
Fig. 1.
The process is generally divided into two steps. The first step is
converting unsaturated fatty acids and triglycerides into saturated fatty
acid by catalytic hydrogenation, the triglycerides occur a β-hydrogen

Table 2
The key conversion and catalysts of different jet fuel production pathways.
Pathway Key conversion step Catalyst

HEFA Catalytic hydrogenation Noble metals, transition metals

Cracking and isomerization Pt, Ni or other precious metals

CH Catalytic hydrothermolysis Zinc acetate

Decarboxylation/Hydrotreating Nickel

HDCJ Hydrodeoxygenation MoCx/C, Pd-Mo

FT FT process Fe, Co, Ni and Ru

Lignin to jet Hydrodeoxygenation Transition metals, metal sulfides, metal phosphides, metal nitrides, carbides and metal oxides
Hydrogenation Ru/C

APR Acid condensation Acid catalysts

Hydrodeoxygenation Ru/C

ATJ Ethanol dehydration Al2O3, transition metal oxides, zeolite catalyst, and heteropolyacid catalysts
Isobutanol dehydration Inorganic acids, metal oxides, zeolites, acidic resins
Butanol dehydration Zeolite, zircornia, solid acid catalysts, HPW (H3PW12O40), and mesoporous silica group

3
H. Wei, et al.
Fig. 1. Hydrogenated esters and fatty acids process.
elimination reaction to yield a fatty acid during the process [49]. The
saturated fatty acid is converted to C15–C18 straight chain alkanes by
hydrodeoxygenation and decarboxylation [50]. The co-products are
propane, H2O, CO and CO2. The early-devoloped catalysts for this step
are noble metals supported with zeolites or oxides, and later shifted to
other transition metals, such as Ni, Mo, Co, Mo or their supported bi-
metallic composites due to catalyst deactivation by poisoning, pro-
duction of cracking species and process costs [51–53].
The second step is the cracking and isomerization reactions: the
deoxygenated straight chain alkanes are further selectively hydro-
cracked and deep isomerized to generate highly branched alkanes
mixed liquid fuels. The common catalysts for this step are Pt, Ni or
other precious metals supported by activated carbon, Al2O3, zeolite
molecular sieves [54–57]. Ni supported by moderately acidy zeolite
catalyst shows excellent activities. While the high acidity catalyst
would result in an overcracking and reduce the isomers yield. The
mixed liquid fuels are then separated to paraffinic kerosene (jet fuel),
paraffinic diesel, naphtha, and light gases by a fractionation process.
Using catalysts, Verma et al. [58] achieved a single-step process for
hydroconversion of triglycerides and free fatty acids. They used Ni–W
catalyst supported on acidic zeolite ZSM-5 to finish the deoxidation and
cracking at a reactor and got a high yield of jet-fuel range hydrocarbons
(77%) with moderately high isomerization selectivity when algal is
used as the feedstock [58]. Li et al. [59] proposed a nickel-based me-
soporous zeolite Y catalyst to convert waste cooking oil to jet biofuel. At
an optimized temperature (400 °C), a high jet range alkane yield
(40.5%) and a low jet range aromatic hydrocarbon yield (11.3%) were
attained. Wu et al. [60] produced jet fuel with aromatic components
from the triglycerides based vegetable oils through a three step catalytic
process. First, the vegetable oils were catalytic cracked into light aro-
matics over the zeolite catalyst. Second, C8–C15 aromatics are produced
by the alkylation of light aromatics using the ionic liquid. Third, aro-
matics are converted into saturated cycloparaffins by the hydrogenation
at 200 °C and 5 MPa for 6 h over the Pd/AC catalyst.
The bio-jet fuels produced by HEFA, as high energy biofuels, can be
directly used in flight engine even without blending. The fuel has high
thermal stability, good cold flow behaviors, high cetane number, and
low tailpipe emissions, while has low aromatic content, which would
cause fuel low lubricity and fuel leakage problems [36].
2.1.2. Catalytic hydrothermolysis
Another pathway to convert algal or oil plant to jet fuel is CH, which
is also named hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). The process diagram of
CH was shown in Fig. 2.
The conversion occurs at a mild temperatures ranged from 250 to
380 °C, at a pressure of 5 MPa to 30 MPa in the presence of water. The
process can use wet feedstock and have a high-energy efficiency due to
the mild reaction conditions. Li et al. [61] put forward an integrated CH
processing concept to convert triglycerides derived from crop oils to
non-ester biofuels. The integrated process has three steps, including
pretreatment of triglycerides, CH conversion and post-refining steps.
The pretreatments including conjugation, cyclization, and cross-linking,
which are aiming to improve the molecular structures. The products
4
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
undergo a cracking and hydrolysis reaction with the help of water and
catalysts. Then it occurs catalytic decarboxylation and dehydration
during the CH process. Last, post-refining hydrotreating and fractio-
nation are designed to convert straight-chain, branched and cyclo-ole-
fins into alkanes. Up to 60% aromatics in Tung-oil-based biofuels are
derived from the CH process. And it is a desirable ingredient for fuel
blends [61]. Except for water solvent, methanol/ethanol could also be
the solvent to convert triglycerides to biofuels in supercritical, while it
is now widely used for the conversion of bio-oil [62,63].
2.2. Conversion process of lignocellulosic biomass
Lignocellulosic biomass have advantages in lowering cost, feasible
availability and no competition with food supplies [64–66]. Cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin are major components of lignocellulosic bio-
mass. Lignocellulose biomass can be converted into fuel by multiple
technologies.
2.2.1. Hydroprocessed depolymerized cellulosic jet
Hydroprocessed depolymerized cellulosic jet (HDCJ) is a oil up-
grading technology to convert bio-oils produced from the pyrolysis or
hydrothermal of the lignocellulose into a jet fuel by hydrotreating. Due
to high oxygen content, biomass pyrolysis oil has undesirable proper-
ties, such as high corrosively, low energy density and poor thermal
instability [67]. The process diagram of HDCJ was shown in Fig. 3.
The main technology for bio-oil upgrading is a two-step hydro-
processing. First, the bio-oil is hydrotreated with the help of catalyst
under mild conditions. Organic could be used to promote hydro-
deoxygenation of bio-oil and overcome coke formation. Second, con-
ventional hydrogenation setup and catalyst were used under high
temperature for obtaining hydrocarbon fuel [68]. Wang et al. [69]
transformed pyrolysis oils of straw stalk to into the jet and diesel fuel by
a three-step reaction. The first step is catalytic cracking of bio-oil into
low-carbon aromatics and light olefins. Second, C8–C15 aromatic hy-
drocarbons are synthesized by the alkylation of low-carbon aromatics
with light olefins. Third, C8–C15 cyclic alkanes are produced by the
hydrogenation of C8–C15 aromatic. The combustion heat, viscosity,
freeze point as well as other characteristics of synthetic biofuels basi-
cally met the technical specifications [69,70]. Other researches for
converting bio-oils are catalytic cracking and hydrothermal liquefaction
[71,72]. In addition, in order to simplify the process and improve ef-
ficiency, the synthesis of jet fuel range hydrocarbons with derivatives,
which come from the pyrolysis of lignocellulose, has drawn tremendous
attention [73,74]. Cao et al. [75] presented a three-step strategy to
convert lignocellulosic biomass into alkylphenols and hydrocarbins.
The first step is converting biomass feedstock to pyrolysis oil. Second,
under low H2 pressures (5 bar) at 300 °C, MoCx/C catalyzed selective
hydrodeoxygenation (SHDO) reactions on a pyrolysis oil were per-
formed. Third, the product mixture was separated over silica, using n-
hexane and ethyl acetate. Duan et al. [76] presented the hydro-
deoxygenation (HDO) of bio-oil to alkanes using a highly dispersed Pd-
Mo catalyst which combines highly dispersed Pd and ultrafine Mo
phosphate nanoparticles on silica. Using a wet-impregnation, the
H. Wei, et al.
Fig. 2. Catalytic hydrothermolysis process.
catalyst (Pd/m-MoO3-P2O5/SiO2) was prepared. Under mild conditions,
the catalystic can achieve 100% effective and 97.5% selective for HDO
of phenol to cyclohexane.
The HDCJ process could produce high aromatic content, low oxygen
content and few impurities jet fuel. However, there is high hydrogen
consumption and deoxygenation requirements in this process, which
can make a considerable expense. Moreover, the short catalyst lifetime
and modest hydrocarbon yields can be challenges for used in aviation
[28].
2.2.2. Fischer-Tropsch process
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) is a process to produce liquid hydrocarbon
fuels from syngas. The common process for FT could be divided into six
procedures: feedstock pretreatments, biomass gasification, gas con-
ditioning, acid gas removal, FT synthesis and syncrude refining. The
process diagram of FT process was shown in Fig. 4.
First, the feedstock is dried and milled to reduce its particle size and
moisture content before gasification. Then the pretreated biomass are
gasified. Many factors including temperature, gasifying agent, biomass
species, particle size, heating rate, operating pressure, equivalence
ratio, catalyst addition and reactor configuration, will influence the
yields and composition of syngas [77]. The gasification for FT always
occurs in the presence of high-purity oxygen and steam under a high
temperature (around 1300 °C). The gasifier reactors for the gasification
usually are moving bed (or fixed bed), fluid bed, and entrained flow
system. The specific comparison of different gasifier reactors could be
found in other research [77]. A direct-quench syngas cooling system
next to the gasifier could remove ash and tars [78]. After the gasifica-
tion, the syngas enters an acid gas removal system to remove the acid
gas, including CO2, H2S and sulfide. The remove of the CO2 could im-
prove the kinetics and economics of the downstream synthesis process,
and the remove of the H2S is to avoid poisoning of the synthesis cata-
lyst. Then the clean gas goes to the gas conditioning system to adjust
the ratio of H2 and CO by the water-gas-reaction. The ratio of H2 and
CO plays an essential role in the FT process. The H2 and CO mixed gas
then enters the FT reactor to create a FT synthesis. The main reactions
during the FT are CO and H2 reacted to generated CnH2nO2, CnH2nO,
CnH2n+2O, CnH2n+2 and CnH2n. Unconverted syngas and some FT gas
could recycle to the FT reactor after a reforming. The liquid products
should be refined to get different type fuel. The excess gas can be used
Fig. 3. Hydroprocessed depolymerized cellulosic jet process.
5
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
to generate electricity.
A key to the target hydrocarbons is the selectivity of the catalyst.
The common catalysts for the FT process are Fe, Co, Ni and Ru [79,80].
Ru has a good catalytic activity and selectivity, while the high price of
Ru limit its widely used [81]. Fe and Co are the most widely used
catalysts for industrial production. Fe-based catalysts have a high space-
time yield, but the life is short. Co-based catalyst has good carbon chain
growth ability, the catalyst products have less oxygen compounds, and
it is not easy to carbon deposition [82]. The addition of some promoters
also could adjust the activity and selectivity of the catalysts, the
common promoters are alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, Cu and
other transition metal [83–85]. More catalyst could be found in other
research [82].
The FT synthesis can also be divided into high temperature FT and
low temperature FT [86]. The temperature for high temperature FT is
around 310–340 °C, and the products are main gasoline, solvent oil and
olefins; the temperature for low temperature FT is around 210–260 °C,
the products are main kerosene, diesel oil, lubricating base oil and
naphtha fractions. Too low temperature of FT will format high quan-
tities of methane as a by-product. Typical pressures of FT process are in
the range of one to several tens of atmospheres. The high pressures will
result the formation of long-chain alkanes [82].
The FT fuel is free of sulfur, nitrogen, has high specific energy, high
thermal stability, and cause low emissions when used for aviation [87].
However, the disadvantages for the fuel are low aromatic content and
less energy density, which would also cause a low efficiency and high
production cost for the process.
2.2.3. Lignin to jet
The processes for converting lignin to jet fuel include four steps:
lignin extraction and purification, lignin depolymerization, upgrading
lignin-derived bio-oils to jet ranged hydrocarbon, and distillation to jet
fuel [88]. The process diagram of lignin to jet process was shown in
Fig. 5.
In conventional jet fuel process, lignin is able to get from the re-
siduals after the hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose, but it is
difficult to get pure lignin. The organosolv processes and ionic liquid
extraction processes are always used for lignin extraction and pur-
ification. Then lignin-derived bio-oils are gathered by depolymeriza-
tion, lignin-derived bio-oils further go through HDO or zeolite cracking
H. Wei, et al.
Fig. 4. Fischer-Tropsch process.
and alkylation, and last the jet fuel is produced though a distillation
[88].
The typical methods for lignin depolymerization are fast pyrolysis,
hydrolysis, and hydrogenolysis. In fast pyrolysis, lignin polymers are
broken into phenolic monomers and dimers, at extremely high heating
rates in the absence of oxygen. The product distribution and yield of
bio-oil from lignin fast pyrolysis are highly influenced by these factors:
lignin pretreatment methods, sources and reaction conditions [88–90].
Hydrolysis includes hydrothermal liquefaction, supercritical organic
solvolysis and ionic liquid solvolysis. Due to the good characteristics,
such as tunable physical properties by altering combinations of cations
and anions, extremely low partial pressures as well as the abilities to
serve as catalyst or solvent, ionic liquid solvolysis have attracted at-
tention for lignin depolymerization [88]. Hydrogenolysis is known as a
useful method for producing high yields of monomeric phenols with
low char [91]. The molecular weights of the resulting liquid fraction
range and includes simple aromatic hydrocarbons with carbon numbers
from 6 to 11. According to the source of hydrogen, lignin depolymer-
ization by hydrogenolysis can be classified into three categories, in-
cluding pressurized gaseous hydrogen, hydrogen produced in situ by a
hydrogen donor solvent as well as hydrogen generated from the solvent
by a specific catalyst [88].
The lignin-derived bio-oils after depolymerization are mainly com-
posed predominately of monomeric or dimeric alkoxyphenols. The high
oxygen content, acidity, instability, high viscosity, and complexity of
constituent compounds limit the use directly as jet fuels [92]. The up-
grading of lignin-derived bio-oils mainly focus on aromatic hydro-
carbons and cycloalkanes for the inefficiency of aromatic and cy-
cloalkane ring-opening reactions [88]. The typical way for lignin-
derived bio-oils upgrading is HDO. HDO is a process to deoxidize and
saturate the bio-oil under a high hydrogen pressures and moderate
temperatures. The reactions include hydrogenation, decarboxylation,
trans-alkylation, deoxygenation as well as hydrogenolysis [88]. There
are two basic parallel reactions in the HDO process: direct HDO and
hydrogenation. In direct HDO, the aromatic character of molecules is
retained by hydrogenolysis of C–O bonds in side chains, leaving aro-
matic hydrocarbons as the primary products. In hydrogenation, the
benzene ring is saturated first, followed by hydrogenolysis of C-O bonds
in side chains, the primary produces are cycloalkanes, such as cyclo-
hexane and methyl-cyclohexane [89,93,94]. The catalysts for the HDO
are transition metals, metal sulfides, metal phosphides, metal nitrides,
carbides and metal oxides. The supports include alumina, silica,
Fig. 5. Lignin to jet process.
6
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
mesoporous nanoparticles, carbons and activated carbons, and other
metal oxides, such as ZrO2, TiO2, CeO2 and MgO [95,96]. And the
standard Schlenk line techniques can be employed for catalyst pre-
paration [97]. After the upgrading, the products are main alkylated
cycloalkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons, the could future alkylation to
produce n- and iso-alkanes, which means that lignin itself might be used
to produce the primary and cyclic components for alternative jet fuels
without any need for blending. As for hydrogenation, Ben et al. [98]
presented a two-step hydrogenation of lignin-derived bio-oils at 600 °C
for 30 min over Ru/C catalyst. The first step was accomplished under
high H2 pressures (14 Mbar) at 300 °C for 4 h over Ru/C. This treatment
can convert bio-oils to a transparent product. The final product was
produced by further hydrogenation of product under high H2 pressures
(14 Mbar) at 250 °C for 2 h with Ru/C catalyst.
In the process of jet fuel production from lignocellulose, lignin
mostly used to provide heat simply through combustion, which is a
waste of resources and harmful for system economy [99,100]. Besides,
lignin has abundant sources. Compared with other biomass compo-
nents, lignin is more easily transformed into aromatic hydrocarbons.
While aromatics are essential for commercial jet fuel in jet fuel quality
and safety [88], so it is necessary to develop lignin-to-jet pathway.
2.3. Conversion process of sugar feedstock
Sugars can produce alkane-type fuels directly by anaerobic fer-
mentation instead of firstly converting to ethanol intermediate, which
called Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbons (DSHC), or Direct Fermentation of
Sugar to Jet (DFSTJ), and the ASTM named it Synthetic Iso-paraffin
from Fermented Hydroprocessed Sugar (SIP). In addition to biochem-
istry pathway, sugar can also convert to jet fuel through the thermo-
chemistry way, such as Aqueous Phase Reforming (APR).
2.3.1. Direct sugar to hydrocarbons
The feedstock for the DSHC are similar to the feedstock of ethanol
production, including the sugar cane, beets and maize, while lig-
nocellulosic biomass also could be the feedstock for the production after
some pretreatments [101]. The process diagram of DSHC process was
shown in Fig. 6.
DSHC is a process to produces alkane-type fuels directly from sugars
via fermentation. It is different from the alcohol to jet pathway, which
needs an alcohol intermediate. The technology is developed based on
the development of genetic engineering and screening technologies that
H. Wei, et al.
Fig. 6. Direct sugar to hydrocarbons process.
enable to modify the way microbes metabolize sugar [102]. The fer-
mentation products are various, basically relate to the substrate feed-
stock, fermentation process and microbial species [103–105]. Amyris
has developed a biochemical technology to produce farnesene using the
mevalonate pathway in yeast cells by the fermentation of sugar. Far-
nesene is a hydrocarbon molecule that can replace petrochemicals in a
wide variety of products, such as diesel and jet fuel [106]. Davis et al.
[104] gave a complete conversion process of DSHC, involving six major
steps: pretreatment and conditioning, enzymatic hydrolysis, hydro-
lysate clarification, biological conversion, product purification and
hydroprocessing. LS9 is another company to commercialize the biolo-
gical conversion of sugar to jet fuel [107]. Except for the fatty acids
aerobically production through the fatty acid biosynthesis pathway, the
LS9 company has focused on developing directly produce alkanes using
a one-step fermentation. This process had achieved diesel production
without elevated temperatures, high pressures, toxic inorganic cata-
lysts, hydrogen, or complex unit operation [108]. Other intermediates
from the fermentation of sugar are in a research stage and need future
development [109,110].
The DSHC has a low energy input due to the low temperature of the
fermentation, while the fuel blend is limited (10%) and not meet some
performances standards. And it is also identified as more suitable for
production high-value chemicals [111].
2.3.2. Aqueous phase reforming
Catalytic aqueous phase reforming is a technology to converts so-
luble plant sugars into chemical intermediates, such as alcohols, ke-
tones, aldehydes, acids, furans and other oxygenated hydrocarbons, and
then further convert these intermediates to jet range hydrocarbons
[100,112,113]. The process diagram of APR process was shown in
Fig. 7.
The process starts with the pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis
of lignocellulosic biomass to get C5 and C6 sugars. Then the hydrolysate
slurry suffers a purification and concentration to satisfy requirements of
the catalytic upgrading processes. Next step is the aqueous phase re-
forming conversion of the sugars. Finally the products are sent to
fractionation to get jet fuel [113]. The unconverted solids, lignin and
the lighter alkanes from APR could be heated to provide heat for the
process. The remaining hydrolysate is concentrated and purified to
increase the economy [100].
Before the aqueous phase reforming, the solvent sugar is firstly
converted to polyhydric alcohols by hydrogenation or other shorter-
chain oxygenated compounds by hydrogenolysis. Then during the
aqueous phase reforming, there are three main reactions for
Fig. 7. Aqueous phase reforming process.
7
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
intermediates oxygenates converting to jet fuel, including acid con-
densation, base condensation and dehydration/oligomerization [114].
The acid condensation is to convert alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, acids
to alkanes, iso-alkanes by using acid catalysts, such as solid acids and
zeolites. The process includes dehydration of oxygenates to alkenes, the
oligomerization of the alkenes to larger alkenes, cracking, cyclization
and dehydrogenation of larger alkenes to aromatics isomerization as
well as cyclization of alkenes and hydrogen-transfer to form alkanes.
The base condensation is to convert alcohols, ketones and aldehydes to
alkanes by direct catalytic condensation. The oxygens firstly convert to
β–hydroxyketoneor or β–hydroxyaldehyde by an aldol condensation,
then β–hydroxyketoneor and β–hydroxyaldehyde dehydrate to form
conjugated enones. The conjugated enones next convert to ketones and
aldehydes or further to alcohol by a hydrogenation. Finally the alcohols
convert to jet ranged fuel by the third routes dehydration/oligomer-
ization or by hydrogenolysis [114].
In addition, Bond et al. [99] proposed a conversion route based on
the biomass components. Firstly, lignocellulose is pretreated using hot
water extraction to get hemicellulose aqueous solution. Subsequently,
hemicellulose oligomers are introduced to a two-stage biphasic reactor
with HCl and tetrahydrofuran to form furans. With an acetone co-feed,
furfural is then condensed in basic media to produce high molecular
weight oxygenates. Finally the oxygenates are hydrotreated over bi-
functional catalysts to remove oxygen and saturate any C]C bonds to
get stable jet fuel. Pretreated solids which main contain cellulose and
lignin are treated with dilute sulfuric acid to convert cellulose to le-
vulinic and formic acids. Residual lignin and degradation products are
used as a boiler feed for process heat. Levulinic is recovered from the
hydrolyzate by extraction using 2-secbutylphenol and then convert to γ-
valerolactone (GVL) by hydrogenation. GVL is further converted to
branched alkenes in a two-reactor system, including decarboxylation to
form butane isomers and oligomerization to form a mixture of alkenes,
the mixture is final hydrogenated to produce a branched alkane pro-
ducts [99].
There are also routes to convert a single component, typically the
sugar alcohols and hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) [112], which is de-
rivative from the sugars to jet fuel by catalytic aqueous phase re-
forming. Wang et al. [115] produced high aromatics content jet fuels
from mixed polyol (60% sorbitol + 40% xylitol) with Ni@HZSM-5/
MCM-41 catalysts. Under the conditions of 300 °C, weight hourly space
velocity (WHSV) of 1.25 h−1, gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of
2500 h−1 and 4.0 MPa of hydrogen pressure, the yield of liquid fuel
with aromatics content of 84.3% was obtained [115]. HMF can be
produced by acid-catalyzed dehydration of hexoses. It can convert to
H. Wei, et al.
Fig. 8. Alcohol to jet process.
alkanes through aldol condensation, cross-condense, hydrogenation
and dehydration/hydrogenation [116]. Li et al. [117] presented a novel
process for the one-pot production of furan-based fuels from fructose.
Fructose can be obtained from carbohydrates by hydrolysis. Over an
acid catalyst, HMF can be producted from fructose by dehydration in an
aqueous/organic system. Subsequently, the purified HMF was con-
verted to dimethylfuran (DMF) by hydrodeoxygenation reaction over
Ru/C catalyst. As for Ru/C catalyst, it can be prepared by incipient wet
impregnation and followed by reduction in H2 at 300 °C for 1 h.
2.4. Conversion process of alcohol feedstock
Alcohol, such as methanol, ethanol or higher alcohols, can be used
to produce biofuels through a series of reactions: dehydration, oligo-
merization and hydroprocessing and distillation [38]. Commercial
production always use ethanol, butanol and isobutanol to be the in-
termediate to converse biomass to jet fuel. The process diagram of APR
process was shown in Fig. 8.
There are a wide range of processes to synthesis alcohols based jet
fuel. Sugars can be directly converted to alcohols by fermentation with
yeasts or microbe. Starches should be acidic or enzymatic hydrolyzed to
release sugars, then fermented to alcohols. For lignocellulosic feed-
stocks, the conversion is more complex, including hydrolysis followed
by fermentation or thermochemical conversion, or gasification followed
by fermentation [118]. Some research also show that sugar can convert
to alcohol by a direct catalytic conversion [119]. Except for H2 and CO,
CH4 is also a promising substrate in fermentation for the production of
biofuels as the development of shale gas and biogas technologies.
The process of production hydrocarbons in the jet fuel range from
the alcohols generally undergoes a four-step upgrading process. First is
the alcohol dehydration to generate olefins, then the olefins are oligo-
merised in the presence of catalysts to produce a middle distillate. Next,
the middle distillates are hydrogenated to produce the jet-fuel-ranged
hydrocarbons. And final step is the distillation [120,121].
The common catalysts for ethanol dehydration include Al2O3,
transition metal oxides, zeolite catalyst, and heteropolyacid catalysts
[122]. Phung et al. [123] compared some commercial zeolite catalysts,
alumina and silica alumina for ethanol dehydration. Compared with
silica alumina and alumina, H-zeolites are definitely more active on
catalyst weight base. H-FER and faujasite show highest ethylene yield
(99.9%) under the temperature 573 K [123]. The ethylenes then un-
dergo a catalytic oligomerization process, and the catalysts could be
either homogeneous or heterogeneous catalysts. Steven et al. [124]
described an ethylene oligomerization process which used cationic (α-
Diimine) nickel(II) catalysts pretreated with aluminum alkyl activators
as the catalyst. The selectivity could be 96% for linear α-olefins when
the reaction conditions achieved optimization. Andrei et al. [125]
prepared a Ni-AlSBA-15 heterogeneous catalysts with highly active,
selective and stable for ethylene oligomerization. These oligomers can
convert to branched alkanes after hydrotreating and isomerization
process, and jet fuel could be get by distillation.
The dehydration of isobutanol could produce a mixture of olefins,
including 1-butene, cis-2-butene, trans-2-butene and isobutene [126].
Isobutanol is most typically dehydrated over mildly acidic γ-Al2O3
catalysts. However, more catalysts have been demonstrated these years,
including inorganic acids, metal oxides, zeolites, acidic resins, and
many more. Taylor et al. [126] studied the dehydration of isobutano by
8
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
using the γ-Al2O3 catalyst. It found that water content and pressure both
negatively affect conversion and selectivity of isobutene. Under the
condition of 325 °C and 60 psig, the conversion of feedstocks and the
isobutylene selectivity were 98.8% and 95.0%, respectively. After de-
hydration, the isobutene then undergo an oligomerization to jet range
alkenes. Phosphoric acid impregnated on solid supports is an early in-
dustrial catalyst for light olefins oligomerization, and more catalysts
have been investigated these years, including sulfonic acid resins, acid
solids such as sulfated zirconia, sulfated titania, nickel-doped zeolites,
nickel supported on sulfated zirconia, and NiO-W2O3/Al2O3 et al.
Among these, zeolites are attractive stable acid catalysts as it exists both
Lewis and Bronsted acid sites. However, the deactivation is still a
problem. Dong et al. [127] used mesostructured aluminosilicates as the
catalyst for isobutene oligomerization. It is found that the catalyst had
both strong acid sites and longevity. The reactivity and selectivity are
superior to commercial zeolite catalysts. conversions can be 80% at a
GHSV of 32.8 h−1 [127]. The resulting products are then hydrotreated
to get jet ranged hydrocarbons.
Just like isobutanol, butanol could also be converted to jet fuel
during the same procedure with the similar catalyst. The common
catalysts for dehydration of butanol includes zeolite, zircornia, solid
acid catalysts, HPW (H3PW12O40), and mesoporous silica group. Jeong
et al. [128] used a new mesoporous materials produced from ferrierite
as the catalyst to synthesis of butenes through butanol dehydration. It
found the catalyst had excellent catalytic activity, selectivity, and sta-
bility [128]. Compared to the direct conversion of 1-butanol to 1-bu-
tene, John et al. [129] proved that there are lower energy barriers in
the consecutive reaction scheme of 1-butanol dehydration to ether
followed by ether decomposition. After dehydration, the butene is
subjected to the oligomerization process. Wright et al. [130] used
Cp2ZrCl2 dissolved in methylaluminoxane (MAO) solution to be the
catalyst for oligomerization. It can bring about 95% carbon use or
greater. Then the products are convert to jet fuel through a hydro-
genation and distillation.
3. Economic evaluation
Economic evaluation mainly analyze the economics of the existing
technology. And advice on promoting technology and improving the
economy, can be given based on economic evaluation. Table 3 sum-
maries the economic characteristics of different jet fuel production
pathways.
3.1. Hydrogenated esters and fatty acids
For the HEFA process, Mupondwa et al. [131] studied a
120,000–1,500,000 tonnes per year solvent extraction plant for jet fuel
production from camelina oil. The break-even selling price (BESP)
ranged from 1.63 to 4.62 USD·gallon−1. While the feedstock re-
presented up to 81–90% of operating cost. The feedstock cost, seed
yield, oil content, plant size as well as co-product camelina meal rev-
enue had a significant effect on the BESP. Meanwhile the higher plant
scale would get better economies. The case for soybean oil got a
3.82–4.39 USD·gallon−1 for different factory size [132]. The minimum
jet fuel selling price (MJSP) for jatropha-derived HRJ is calculated to be
5.42 USD·gallon−1 based on the plant capacity of 2400 tonne of feed-
stock per day when the feedstock was jatropha fruit. While the MJSP
H. Wei, et al. Fuel 254 (2019) 115599

Table 3 noticed that this case produced a significant amount of by-product,

Minimum jet fuel selling price for different jet fuel production pathways.a,b,c including gasoline and LPG, which could bring an important offset of
Pathway Feedstock MJSP (USD•gallon- Ref bio-jet fuels cost. Compared with HEFA, the FT process has smaller
1
) MJSP. However, it is more capital-intensive and easily effected by
feedstock price. Meanwhile, the strategy of producing by-product, such
HEFA Camelina oil 1.63–4.62 [131]
as other fuels and electricity, can significantly decrease the bio-jet fuels
Soybean oil 3.82–4.39 [132]
Jatropha 5.42–5.74 [133]
cost.
Waste oils and animal fat 2.36–4.73 [132,133]
Microalgae 31.98 [136] 3.3. Alcohol to jet process
CH Camelina oils 2.48–3.23 [137]
Lignocellulose 3.66–5.06 [111] For alcohol to jet process, Diederichs et al. [39] compared the
HDCJ Lignocellulose 5.23–7.15 [111] techno-economics for three routes, syngas fermentation, lignocellulose
biochemical conversion and sugar cane biochemical conversion. The
FT Lignocellulose 6.23–7.57 [37,136]
MJSP from syngas fermentation, lignocellulose biochemical conversion
ATJ Sugar cane (Biochemistry) 3.65–8.08 [37,137,138]
and sugar cane biochemical conversion were 7.73 USD·gallon−1,
corn grain (Biochemistry) 3.84–6.63 [137,138]
Lignocellulose (Biochemistry) 4.32–10.91 [37,137-139]
10.64 USD·gallon−1 and 7.88 USD·gallon−1, respectively [39]. The
Lignocellulose 7.30–7.82 [39] lignocellulose biochemical conversion is much higher than the base
(Thermochemistry) MJSPs of the other investigated processes due to the high cost of the
DSHC Sugar cane 7.17 [136] enzyme. The further improvements should be done in reducing the
Lignocellulose 18.14–24.42 [111] enzyme cost and increasing the overall yield or ethanol broth con-
APR Lignocellulose 4.66–4.75 [142] centration. For sugar cane biochemical conversion, the feedstock cost,
fixed capital cost, stream factor, minimum acceptable internal rate of
a −1
The average price of jet fuel is 2.07 USD·gallon in 2018. return and electricity product price were the parameters to change the
b
The jet fuel meets the ASTM, the density is 775–840 kg/m3; MJSP [39]. Staples et al. [139] assessed the minimum selling price from
c
Using the average euro-dollar exchange rate in 2013 (0.753 € USD–1). advanced fermentation using the sugar cane, corn grain and switchgrass
as feedstock. The results suggested that the breakeven prices of these
was 5.74 USD·gallon−1 when the feedstock was jatropha oil. The fac- feestocks range from 2.31 to 9.96 USD·gallon−1, 3.18–13.82 USD·-
tors, including feedstock cost, refinery capital cost, co-product credits gallon−1 and 4.13–23.85 USD·gallon−1, respectively [139]. The feed-
as well as energy cost, can explain the differences of MJSPs for fruit and stock costs are the major contributor to the variability in breakeven
oil scenarios [133]. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the feedstock cost prices of sugar cane and corn grain, while capital costs are the major
contributes a large level of uncertainty for the production cost, resulting contributor to the variability in breakeven prices of switchgrass [139].
in a wide range of MJSP. It can drop MJSP by 22% by increasing the oil In one another case for producing ethanol from polar, the MJSPs were
content from 33% to 48%. Besides, the factors, including plant capacity, estimated to range from 4.32 to 6.78 USD·gallon−1 with a 15% discount
reactor construction as well as catalyst price/loading, can significantly rate. For different facility capacity, the capital investments were esti-
cause high degree of uncertainties. These measures, such as improve- mated to range from 356 to 1026 million USD [141]. Atsonios et al.
ment of utilizing or selling the co-products, can help to reduce the bio- [138] compared the n-Butanol and Isobutanol pathway for jet fuel
jet fuels production cost [133]. For the HEFA of waste oils and animal production, the MJSPs were 7.49 USD·gallon−1 and 6.44 USD·gallon−1,
fats, the minimum selling price was to be 3.33–4.01 USD·gallon−1 for respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, plant size, biomass
yellow grease-derived HEFA, and 3.98–4.73 USD·gallon−1 for tallow- feedstock price and by-products are the main factors to effect the MJSP.
derived HEFA fuels [134]. In another research, the MJSP for jet fuel Compared with other processes, the biochemical route based on Acet-
production from waste vegetable was 2.36 USD·gallon−1 in Mexico one–Butanol–Ethanol fermentation can be the most economically de-
[135]. For microalgae, the MJSP was 31.98 USD·gallon−1. The sensi- sirable option [138]. Yao et al. [140] compared the different feedstocks
tivity analysis of the development of technology and the market would for alcohol production. The mean breakeven jet fuel prices for su-
project the prices to decrease to 9.17 USD·gallon−1 [136]. The cost for garcane, corn grain and switchgrass were 3.65 USD·gallon−1,
HEFA is significant effected by the species of feedstock. Based on the 3.84 USD·gallon−1 and 5.21 USD·gallon−1, respectively [140]. The
previous studies, vegetable oil, such as camelina oil and soybean oil, economics of alcohol to jet process is mainly effected by the way to
could achieve a lower cost compared with microalgae. However, as a produce alcohol, while the biochemistry way has relatively smaller
promising technology, the HEFA from algae has the potential to be a MJSP. The sugar cane and starch are suitable feedstock from an eco-
feasible way to produce bio-jet fuels. nomics prospective.

3.2. Fischer-Tropsch process 3.4. Direct sugar to hydrocarbons

For the FT process, the feedstock has a significant effect on the cost
of the fuel. Compared with producing liquid fuels from coal and natural
gas, the cost of FT fuel from biomass was higher due to its low energy
density as well as long distance transport of feedstock. FT process has
the biggest fixed capital cost proportion to any other jet fuel production
pathway. Diederichs et al. [39] analyzed the techno‑economic for jet
production from gasification followed by FT synthesis (GFT-J), whose
MJSP were 7.57 USD·gallon−1. For this process, variation in feedstock
and fixed capital cost can cause a larger than 10% overall change in
MJSP. The fixed capital cost and by-products can cause a high un-
certainty in the GFT-J process [39]. The MJSP for another plant which
produced jet fuel from biomass gasification followed by FT process was
6.23 USD·gallon−1 [138]. This plant could process 864 dry tonne wood
chips in one day and employ circulating fluidized bed gasifier. It was
For DSHC, the MJSP was 7.17 USD·gallon−1 when the feedstock is
sugarcane. And feedstock cost occupied 70.89% of the fuel cost., The
sensitivity analysis of the development of technology and the market
would project the prices to decrease to 4.00 USD·gallon−1 [136]. Jong
et al. [111] compared several different pathways to produce jet fuel
from biomass. The MJSP of DSHC from either forestry residues or wheat
straw was much higher than any other pathways, were
18.55–20.61 USD·gallon−1 and 24.74–26.80 USD·gallon−1. However,
the DSHC process could produce a high-valued intermediates iso-
prenoids, which can be used to produce cosmetics, flavors, fragrances,
lubricants and biopharmaceuticals. One of these isoprenoids, farnesene
is at the price 22.53 USD·gallon−1 [111]. The feedstock is a main factor
to effect the economics of the DSHC, sugarcane is the best feedstock.
And the process is considering more suitable for high-valued

9
H. Wei, et al. Fuel 254 (2019) 115599

intermediates rather than bio-jet fuels. Table 5

GHG emission of different pathway of jet fuel production.a
3.5. Other conversion process Pathway Feedstock GHG emissison (g CO2-eq/ Ref
MJ)
For other processes of bio-jet fuels production, Jong et al. [111]
HEFA Camelina oil 3.06–53.10 [145,146]
studied the techno-economic feasibility of CH and pyrolysis from for- Jatropha oil 33.00–40.00 [149]
estry residues or wheat straw. The MJSP of CH and pyrolysis were Waste oils and animal 16.80–21.40 [134]
3.66–5.06 USD·gallon−1 and 5.23–7.15 USD·gallon−1, respectively. fat
These two processes had relatively low fuel cost due to high yields and Microalgae oil 27.00–38.00 [150]
modest equipment cost. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the variation CH Microalgae oil 21.20–39.30 [151]
of yields could have a significantly influence on the MJSP of CH. While HDCJ Lignocellulose −2.70–49.50 [146,150]
the fuel cost of pyrolysis was easily effected by feedstock price and total
FT Lignocellulose −1.60–18.20 [76,143,146]
capital investment [111]. Natelson et al. [137] modeled a refinery with
the capacity of 76,000 m3 hydrocarbons per year for jet fuel production ATJ Sugar cane −27.00–19.70 [139]
Corn grain 47.5–117.50 [139]
by a hydrolysis–decarboxylation–reforming process from camelina oil. Switchgrass 11.70–89.80 [139]
The total refinery cost was 283 million dollars in 2014 USD. Under Poplar 32.00–73.00 [95]
baseline assumptions, the break-even selling price was 2.46 USD·-
DSHC Sugar cane 22.00–80.00 [150]
gallon−1. While decarboxylation catalyst, solvent as well as other un-
expected replacement parts would double the annual operating supplies a
The GHG emission of conventional jet fuel is 90 g CO2-eq/MJ.
and lab charges cost. The range of jet fuel break-even price can be from
2.48 to 3.23 USD·gallon−1 [137]. Li et al. [142] studied the techno- directions to optimize the production system. Different conversion
economics of bio-jet fuels production via aqueous phase reforming. This pathway may get different amounts of GHG emissions due to diverse
process used corncob as feedstock and MJSP was 4.66 USD·gallon−1. feedstock and reaction processes. Comparing different production
According to sensitivity analysis, the fuel cost of this process was easily technologies will help determine the better platform for jet fuel pro-
effected by the catalytic lifetime and corncob price. Bond et al. [99] duction. A complete LCA on the industrial level involves cultivation,
studied the production of renewable jet fuel range alkanes from bio- harvesting and transportation of feedstock, land use change, production
mass by integrated catalytic processing. The minimum selling prices for and transportation of ancillary chemicals, biorefinery process, as well
distillate fuels are 4.75 USD·gallon−1. The recommendations for further as storage, transport, distribution, and the combustion of the fuel [95].
cost reduction includes decreasing catalyst cost for the hydro- The presence of variability in life cycle analysis is inherent due to both
deoxygenation reactor, developing Lignin and Humin conversions, inexact LCA procedures and variation of numerical inputs, and different
improving the yield and recoveries of levulinic acid and low xylose as assess method will get different result [145,146]. Table 5 gives the GHG
well as improving recycle structure of water stream. If these above emission of different pathway of jet fuel production.
mentioned improvements realized, the MJSP would be 2.88 USD·- For the camelina oil hydrotreating process, the global warming
gallon−1 [99]. As an important parameter, Table 4 gives the energy potential (GWP) ranged from 3.06 to 31.01 g CO2-eq/MJ, and the oil
efficiency of some conversion pathways. extraction is the most big part for CO2 emission. When the available oil
yield was the lowest, camelina oil contributed 76% to 84% of GHG
4. Environmental influences emissions, while camelina oil contributed 28% to 46% of GHG emis-
sions at higher oil yield. The process could reduce the GWP caused by
With the increasing concerns on environmental issues, it is obvious fossil based jet fuel by 65% to 97% [147]. In another research based on
that constraints and criteria of bio-jet fuels production will be stricter in well-to-wake analysis, the GHG emission reduction for camelina oil-to-
the future. There are already some studies focusing to assess environ- jet process was 41–63% when relatived to petroleum jet. It was found
mental influences of bio-jet fuels production, such as CO2 emission, that the GHG emissions from production stage were much smaller than
water use, land use and other environmental impacts. those from fertilizer use and feedstock collection stage [148]. For ja-
tropha process, the GWP was 40 g CO2-eq/MJ, a 55% GWP reduction of
4.1. Life cycle CO2 emission the conventional jet fuel [149]. For the waste oils and animal fat, the
GWP was 16.8–21.4 g CO2-eq/MJ, which corresponded to a 76–81% life
The original attempt to produce biomass based jet fuel is to reduce cycle GHG emission reduction [134]. For the microalgae oils product jet
CO2 emission caused by fossil jet fuels. Biomass based jet fuel is fuel process, it could reduce 53% of the GHG emission compared to
sometimes named as cartbon neutral products. However, each process fossil based jet fuel. The energy resource consumption was 1.0 MJ/MJ
in the production systems need direct and indirect input that associated [150]. In the case for microalgae oil hydrothermal liquefaction process,
with carbon emission. It is very important to evaluate the net life cycle the GHG emission could be reduced by 76%. Due to the high sensitivity
CO2 emissions from these bio-jet fuels production processes. And life of distance to the refinery, the plant location is an important factor to
cycle assessment (LCA) can also give a clear identification to the change effect the emission [151]. For the fast pyrolysis of cellulosic process, the
in GHG emissions due to the use of alternative fuels, also can give the GHG emission reduced by 45–103% compared to conventional jet fuels,
and the way for hydrogen production effect the emission a lot [152].
Table 4 Another research got the GHG reduction of pyrolysis corn stover oil for
Energy efficiency for different jet fuel production pathways. jet production was 68–76%, the feedstock and plant scale are also big
factors for the CO2 emission analysis [148]. In a conclusion, the GHG
Pathway Energy efficiency Reference
emission has obviously different influencing factors for the oil-to-jet
HEAF 0.71–0.77 [143] process when the feedstocks are different, the oil extraction, fertilizer
CH 0.58–0.89 [144] use, land use change, plant location, hydrogen resource, plant scale are
HDCJ 0.36 [144]
important factors to effect the emission.
FT 0.40–0.53 [111]
Alcohol to jet 0.91 [111]
Kreutz et al. [78] compared FT process for jet fuel production from
DSHC 0.50 [111] coal and biomass. It found that the GHG emission was more than double
APR 0.32 [142] when the feedstock was coal. While the biomass FT process could get a

10
H. Wei, et al.
negative emissions, when 42% biomass mixed with coal and carbon
capture and storage (CCS) was used, the GHG emission would be es-
sentially zero [78]. Han et al. [148] got a 89% GHG emission when used
coal and corn stover for jet fuel production by FT jet fuel. Stratton et al.
[145] also found that the GHG emission of biomass FT jet fuel pro-
duction was −1.6 to 18.2 g CO2-eq/MJ. In a conclusion, the feedstock
effect the FT emission a lot. However, it is suggested that the CCS, co-
production of fuels and power will help to reduce the GHG emission.
For alcohol to jet process, Staples et al. [139] assessed the life cycle
CO2 emission from advanced fermentation using the sugar cane, corn
grain and switchgrass as feedstock. Compared to 90.0 g CO2-eq/MJ for
conventional jet fuel, the GHG emission of these feedstock were
−27.0–19.7, 47.5–117.5, 11.7–89.8 g CO2-eq/MJ, respectively [139].
The feedstock yield is found to have an important effect to the GHG
emission and direct land use change emissions [139]. Budsberg et al.
[95] used a short rotation woody crops poplar to produce jet fuel by the
intermediate ethanol. The GWP were different for different hydrogen
production methods. For hydrogen produced by natural gas steam re-
forming way, the GWP was 60–66 g CO2-eq/MJ, the fossil fuel usage was
0.78–0.84 MJ/MJ. While for hydrogen produced by lignin gasification,
the GWP was 32–73 g CO2-eq/MJ, the fossil fuel usage was
0.71–1.00 MJ/MJ, and the GWP of the petro-jet was 93 g CO2-eq/MJ,
the fuel usage was 1.2 MJ/MJ. The results suggested that the bior-
efinery category and jet fuel use are the two main source of GHGs that
contribute to the GWP [95]. In a conclusion, the sugar cane is thought
more suitable to be the feedstock for the alcohol-to-jet process in the
sight of CO2 emission, and the hydrogen resource, biorefinery category
process are important factors for the emission analysis. As for DSHC
process, the GHG emission reduced by 73% when compared to the fossil
based jet fuel, and the fossil energy consumption was 1.7 MJ/MJ [150].
4.2. Water consumption
Water supply of bio-jet fuels has been an important concern of en-
vironmental viability, especially considering a widely application of
bio-jet in the future. Table 6 gives the water consumption focusing on
several bio-jet fuels production pathways. For HEFA process, Cox et al.
[150] studied the environmental impacts of bio-jet fuels production
from pongamia and microalgae in Australia. This study indicated that
these two pathways have the lower impact on water use. For the sce-
nario of economic allocation, the water use of pongamia and micro-
algae was 5.5 and 6.4 m3/GJ, respectively. As for system expansion, the
water use of pongamia (11.8 m3/GJ) and microalgae processing
(13.9 m3/GJ) was higher than economic allocation [150]. Staples et al.
[153] studied water consumption footprint of middle distillate (MD)
transportation fuels production in the US. For the rainfed biomass-de-
rived jet fuel production, the mid water use (including blue and green
water consumption footprint) from jatropha, rapeseed and soybean was
66.45, 57.91 and 63.65 m3/GJ, respectively. In the scenario of irrigated
biomass cultivation, the mid water consumption increased to 75.03,
102.65 and 106.7 m3/GJ, respectively, caused by the large water re-
quirement of irrigation [153]. Shi et al. [154] studied the water foot-
print for rapeseed serived jet fuel in North Dakota. The water footprint
Table 6
Water consumption from different jet fuel production pathway.
Pathway Feedstock Water use (m3/GJ) Reference
HEFA Pongamia oil 5.50–11.80 [150]
Microalgae oil 6.40–13.90 [150]
Rapeseed 57.91–143.00 [151,152]
Jatropha 66.45–75.03 [153]
Soybean 63.65–106.79 [153]
DSHC Sugarcane 15.60–147.00 [148,151]
Switchgrass 92.39–104.74 [153]
Corn grain 76.46–85.81 [153]
11
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
(including blue, green and gray water consumption footprint) was
131–143 m3/GJ using energy allocation [154].
For DSHC process, Cox et al. [150] indicated that the higher water
use of sugarcane was 15.60 and 147.00 m3/GJ for the scenario of
economic allocation and system expansion, respectively. Staples et al.
[153] studied the jet fuel production from sugarcane, corn and
switchgrass. The results indicated the mid water consumption was
71.73–86.57, 76.46–85.81 and 92.40–104.74 m3/GJ, respectively.
4.3. Other environmental issues
Land use intensity is another important factor of environmental
influence. Cox et al. [150] accessed the land use of bio-jet fuels pro-
duction from sugarcane, pongamia and microalgae. The land use in-
tensities for sugarcane pathway had the largest range (5.1–38.9 m2/
100 MJ). As for pongamia and microalgae, the land use was 4.5–7.8 and
6.8–7.0 m2/100 MJ, respectively.
Eutrophication was also analyzed by Cox et al. [150]. The results
suggested that sugarcane pathway had higher impact on eutrophication
(0.015–0.044 kg PO4eq/100 MJ), while lower impact on eutrophication
was in pongamia (0.009–0.012 kg PO4eq/100 MJ) and microalgae
(0.007–0.011 kg PO4eq/100 MJ).
There are also other environmental issues to be identified in the
future. For example, the influence on global nitrogen cycle associated
with the production of bio-jet fuels, which involve the ultilization of
chemical fertilizer; the impacts on other species in the ecosystem; the
complex relationship with global climate system.
5. Bio-jet fuels development
5.1. Current polices and status of bio-jet fuels
In addition to the development of conversion technologies, the
policy designed by government also can provide significant support to a
widespread deployment of bio-jet fuels. In the United States, the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) tries to make price-competitive alter-
native jet fuel available by providing support for building up new-
technology production plants as well as incentives for agriculture. For
starting a regular supply of a biofuel blend to the joint fuel distribution,
these organizations, including KLM, Schiphol Airport, the bio-jet fuels
supplier SkyNRG, the Dutch government and other local partners, are
working together in the Bioport Holland project in Schiphol Airport in
2017. The EU has recently announced plans to revise the Renewable
Energy Directive (2020–2030), including proposals to increase in-
centives for sustainable aviation fuels. Indonesia has introduced an al-
ternative jet fuel mandate of 2% commencing in 2018, rising to 5% by
2025. China has published the 13th Five Year Plan for energy, sug-
gesting that there will be a significant increase of renewable energy use
in the future [155], including biomass based fuels. As for the biofuel
production, the demonstration project of biomass-to-liquids and bio-jet
fuels can be the emphasis and direction to promote the biofuel devel-
opment. During the CAEP/11 cycle (2016–2019), the ICAO Alternative
Fuel Task Force assessed the effectiveness of different policy mechan-
isms for the commercial deployment of sustainable alternative jet fuel
[6]. Table 7 gives the current status for different jet fuel production
pathways. Some of the technologies, for instance, the Fischer-Tropsch
and the hydrogenated esters and fatty acids, are now in the commercial
stages, while some of others, especially for the new technologies, need
further development before they could be industrialized.
5.2. Certifications and commercial flights
The certifications for sustainable aviation fuel was firstly proposed
by ASTM. In 2009, ASTM approved fuels produced by the Fischer-
Tropsch process as the first bio fuel for commercial flights use. Soon
after, ASTM approved fuel produced by HEFA process in 2011. Then
H. Wei, et al. Fuel 254 (2019) 115599

Table 7 5.3. Challenges and future outlook

Current status for different jet fuel production pathways.
Pathway Status
HEFA Demonstration to commercialization
CH Pilot to demonstration
HDCJ Pilot to demonstration
FT Demonstration to commercialization
ATJ Research and development to commercialization
DSHC Pilot to demonstration
APR Pilot to demonstration
Lignin to jet Pilot
ASTM approved the third production pathway, the Synthetic Iso-par-
affin from Fermented Hydroprocessed Sugar, called the SIP fuel in
2014. According to the ASTM D7566 specification, the blending ratio of
the synthetic fuels to the conventional fuel should not exceed 50%.
There are also some other pathways being certified to complete the
specification, such as alcohol-to-jet, FT synthetic paraffinic kerosene
with aromatics, hydroprocessed depolymerized cellulosic jet, et al.
From 2011 to 2015, there were 22 airlines performing over 2500
commercial passenger flights with blending 50% bio-jet fuels [6].
About 4.5 million liters of sustainable aviation fuels were produced
globally in 2016, which doubled the number of the 2015. Meanwhile,
there were more than 3000 flights using a blend of bio-jet fuels [1].
Groups all over the world are working together on measures for the
deployment of bio-jet fuels, including CAAFI (US), BioFuelNet (Ca-
nada), Plan de Vuelo (Mexico), Ubrabio (Brazil), aireg (Germany),
Bioqueroseno (Spain), Sustainable Aviation (UK), Bioport Holland (The
Netherlands), NISA (Nordic countries) and AISAF (Australia). While
further projects are taking place in other countries, including China, the
UAE, Qatar, Israel and Japan [6]. Table 8 shows some commercial
flights tested with the bio-jet fuels [156].
Even though the need of alternative aviation biofuels are raising
rapidly, there are many challenges to overcome before it could replace
fossil jet fuel, including the feedstock availability, economic and sus-
tainability. Table 9 gives a summary for different jet fuel production
pathways.
Over the long-term development, the availability of sustainable
feedstock is a significant challenge for the commercial-scale deploy-
ment of alternative jet fuels. The feedstock for bio-jet production should
have some characteristics, such as a large yield with a wide distribution,
a wide range getting ways, no competition with food production and no
deforestation caused. In addition, the low-price feedstock is also needed
for large scale production [157]. It is necessary to include the devel-
opment of feedstock production in supporting policies, research and
development efforts. The innovation in feedstock is to develop feed-
stock which require minimum resources in terms of land and water
quality and nutrients. This is the key for the large scale deployment of
alternative fuels [158].
The economics is the major hurdle to be overcomed for the de-
ployment of alternative fuels in aviation [159]. The price of bio-jet fuels
are much higher than the conventional fossil jet fuels. Incentives, or
compensation mechanisms for the environmental benefits of using bio-
jet fuels, are required to bridge the price gap in order for airlines to buy
the fuels and create a market perspective to attract investors and reduce
the perceived risk [158]. The main factors affecting the economic via-
bility of bio-jet production are the feedstock price, the operating cost,
the equipment cost, the conversion efficiency or product yield and the
selling prices for the distillate fuels and the co-products [99]. Therefore,
efforts for further cost reduction should be focused on feedstock pro-
ductivity, cheap catalyst, select and distribution of equipment, optimal
reaction conditions, factory scale, recovery and utilize of the co-pro-
ducts [99,111]. The key way to improve competition for alternative jet
fuels is to reduce the market price when it can compete with the con-
ventional jet fuel, this will necessitate further support and investments

Table 8
. Commercial flights tested with the bio jet fuels.
Airline Aircraft Partners Year Feedstocks Biojet Fuel Content Conversion Pathway

KML B737 SkyNRG 2011 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Lufthansa A321 Neste Oil 2011 Vegetable oils 50% Oil to jet
Finnair A321 SkyNRG 2011 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Interjet A320 ASA 2011 Jatropha 27% Oil to jet
Aeromexico B777 ASA 2011 Jatropha 30% Oil to jet
Iberia A320 ASA 2011 Camelina Oil to jet
Thomson Airways B757 SkyNRG 2011 Used cooking oil Oil to jet
Airfrance A321 SkyNRG 2011 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
United 737–800 Solazyme 2011 Algae 40% Oil to jet
Alaska Airlines 737s and Q400s SkyNRG 2011 Used cooking oil 20% Oil to jet
Thai 777–200 SkyNRG 2011 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Lufthansa 747 Neste Oil 2012 vegetable oils Oil to jet
Lan A320 SkyNRG 2012 Used cooking oil 30% Oil to jet
Qantas A330 SkyNRG 2012 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Porter Q400 Honeywell/SkyNRG 2012 Used cooking oil Oil to jet
Jetstar A320 SkyNRG 2012 Used cooking oil Oil to jet
Porter Q400 2012 Camelina Oil to jet
Air Canada A319 SkyNRG 2012 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Aeromexico 777 ASA 2013 Mix of oils 50% Oil to jet
KML 777 SkyNRG 2013 Used cooking oil Oil to jet
KML 777 SkyNRG 2014 Used cooking oil Oil to jet
Lan A320 2014 Camelina 30% Oil to jet
KML A330 SkyNRG 2014 Used cooking oil 20% Oil to jet
GOL 737 Honeywell UOP 2014 Inedible corn oil and used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Lufthansa A320 Amyris Total 2014 Sugarcane 10% Sugar to jet
Finnair A330 SkyNRG 2014 Used cooking oil 10% Oil to jet
Scandinavain Airlines 737–800 SkyNRG Nordic 2014 Used cooking oil 10% Oil to jet
Scandinavain Airlines 737–800 SkyNRG Nordic 2014 Used cooking oil 48% Oil to jet
Norwegian 737–800 SkyNRG Nordic 2014 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet
Hannan Airlines 747–800 Sinopec 2015 Used cooking oil 50% Oil to jet

12
H. Wei, et al. Fuel 254 (2019) 115599

Table 9
Summary for different jet fuel production pathways.
Pathway Feedstock Technical characteristics Economic features Environmental influence Commercial issues

HEFA Vegetable oils High thermal stability Feedstock sensitive Low tailpipe emissions Certified
Waste animal fats Good cold flow behaviors Low impact on water use
Used cooking oils High energy efficiency Low impact on land use
Algal oils Low lubricity
Fuel leakage problems

CH Algal High energy efficiency Relatively low cost Significant CO2 reduction Under certified
Oil plants No commercial scale
demonstration
Lignocellulosic biomass

HDCJ Lignocellulosic biomass Few impurities Low byproduct utilization Low tailpipe emissions Under certified
High hydrogen consumption
High deoxygenation
requirements

FT Lignocellulosic biomass Good cold flow behaviors High production cost Low tailpipe emissions Certified
Municipal waste High thermal stability
Less energy density
Low lubricity
Fuel leakage problems

Alcohol to jet Sugarcane Long route High production cost Emission affected by
feedstock
Starch crops Long production cycle
Lignocellulosic biomass High energy efficiency

DSHC Sugarcane Low energy input More suitable for production high- Significant CO2 reduction Certified
value chemicals
Starch crops Limited blends (10%) High impact on water use
Lignocellulosic biomass High impact on land use

APR Sugarcane Few suitable catalysts Moderate cost Under certified

Starch crops No commercial scale
demonstration
Lignocellulosic biomass

Lignin to jet Lignocellulosic biomass Without need for blending No certification

Complex process Technology under development

in research and development, as well as the demonstration and scale-up
of technologies. A wide range of promotion of aviation carbon taxes
would also increases the competitiveness of bio-jet fuels.
Except for feedstock availability and economics, the sustainability is
also an important issue for bio-jet fuels. The commercial scale devel-
opment may also have a broad scope of environmental, societal and
economic consequences. For example, the production of large volumes
of biomass may has high impacts on land and water use as well as
biodiversity, soil degradation, and the important changes in rural so-
ciety and local communities [158]. Policies for the sustainable de-
ployment of alternative fuels are needed, including seting sustainability
targets and implementing associated dedicated measures, especially in
terms of the indirect impacts of a large scale deployment of alternative
fuels, such as land use change and food security [36].
Considering the feedstock available, technology state, environ-
mental impacts and economic assessment, HEFA and Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis are thought to be the most promising technologies for the bio-
jet fuels production in the future. The two technologies all have a wide
range of feedstock resources, mature technical states, low CO2 emission
and cheap selling prices. However, more works should be done before
the two technologies could be in the large-scale production. And along
with the cost decreacing in emerging new technologies, there are many
possibilities in the future development of bio-jet fuels.
5.4. The influence of large-scale deployment of bio-jet fuels production
With the development of bio-jet fuels, it can bring a huge potential
of renewable bio-jet fuels production and GHG emission reduction in
the future. Considering the availability of the biomass feedstock data,
the influence of large-scale deployment of bio-jet fuels production is
evaluated based on previous literatures.
For the convenience of assessment, available biomass feedstock in-
cludes agricultural residue, forestry residue and mill residue based on
statistics and crop-specific parameters. And these can be divided into
two parts, lignocellulosic biomass and sugar feedstock. Potential re-
sidue biomass energy of lignocellulosic and sugar feedstock is 6.72 EJ/
yr and 0.41 EJ/yr in China, respectively [160]. By multiplying the en-
ergy efficiency of different pathway, there is 3.16 EJ/yr bio-jet fuels
produced, which is about 38% of transportation oil energy consumption
in China in 2014 [161]. Compared with conventional jet fuel, bio-jet
fuels can bring a huge GHG emission reduction, 0.23 billion metric
tons, which surpasses the emissions from transportation energy in
China in 2014 [161], and reduces 2.71% of energy-related GHG emis-
sions in China in 2012 [2].
According to the reporter of U.S. Energy Information
Administration, the global jet fuel consumption will increase to 22.88
EJ in 2040 [2]. The global potential residue biomass energy of lig-
nocellulosic biomass and sugar feedstock was 42.54 EJ/yr and 6.17 EJ/
yr for 2005, respectively [160]. Hence, the rough estimations of global
bio-jet fuels produced could reach 21.46 EJ, about 94% global jet fuel
consumption in 2040. These bio-jet fuels will make a great GHG
emission reduction, 1.50 billion tonnes, reduce 4.64% of world energy-
related GHG emissions in 2012 [2].
6. Conclusion
The production of jet fuels from renewable bioresources is a pro-
mising way for aviation industry to reduce the dependence on fossil and
achieve the carbon emission reduction targets. The feedstock for the
bio-jet fuel production is various, and different production pathways
require different feedstock. Feedstock availability, economics and sus-
tainability are the main challenges for the commercialization of jet fuel.

13
H. Wei, et al.
Efforts should be done to reduce the market price for bio-jet fuels to
compete with conventional jet fuels, including policy support and
technical improvement while ensuring sustainability for the environ-
ment. Considering the large-scale deployment of bio-jet fuels, a sig-
nificant potential of GHG emission reduction could be achieved by
using available biomass feedstock in the future.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 51576087), Outstanding Youth Science Foundation of China
(No. 51622604), the Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Coal
Combustion (No. FSKLCCA1902), and the Double first-class research
funding of China-EU Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy (No.
3011120016).
References
[1] International Air Transport Association. Annual Review; 2017.
[2] US energy, information administration. International Energy Outlook, 2016.
[3] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). International energy statistics;
2015.
[4] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review; 2017.
[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook, 2017.
[6] International Air Transport Association. Annual Review, 2016.
[7] International Air Transport Association. IATA Economic Briefing, 2015.
[8] C.K.G.S.B. Knowledge Flying High: China’s aviation industry is becoming a global
force, 2017.
[9] Air Transport Action Group. FACTS$FIGURES; 2015.
[10] International Air Transport Association. IATA Annual Review; 2015.
[11] International Air Transport Association. Carbon Offsetting Scheme for
International Aviation (CORSIA), 2016.
[12] Civil Aviation Energy Saving and Emission Reduction “13th Five - Year Plan”;
2017 (In chinese).
[13] Baliban RC, Elia JA, Floudas CA, Xiao X, Zhang Z, Li J, et al. Thermochemical
conversion of duckweed biomass to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel: process synthesis
and global optimization. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52(33):11436–50. https://doi.
org/10.1021/ie3034703.
[14] Elia JA, Baliban RC, Floudas CA, Gurau B, Weingarten MB, Klotz SD. Hardwood
biomass to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel: 2. supply chain optimization framework
for a network of thermochemical refineries. Energy Fuels 2013;27(8):4325–52.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400430x.
[15] Jones SB, Valkenburg C, Walkton CW, Elliott DC, Holladay JE, Stevens DJ, et al.
Design Case Summary: Production of Gasoline and Diesel from Biomass via Fast
Pyrolysis, Hydrotreating, and Hydrocracking. EERE Publication and Product
Library; 2010.
[16] Jones SB, Valkenburg C, Walton CW, Elliott DC, Holladay JE, Stevens DJ, et al.
Production of Gasoline and Diesel from Biomass via Fast Pyrolysis, Hydrotreating
and Hydrocracking: A Design Case (No. PNNL-18284 Rev. 1). Pacific Northwest
National Lab.(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); 2009. https://doi.org/10.
2172/950728.
[17] Tan ECD, Marker TL, Roberts MJ. Direct production of gasoline and diesel fuels
from biomass via integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion process-a
techno- economic analysis. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2014;33(2):609–17.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11791.
[18] Agusdinata DB, Zhao F, Ileleji K, Dan DL. Life cycle assessment of potential biojet
fuel production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45(21):9133–43.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es202148g.
[19] Lokesh K, Sethi V, Nikolaidis T, Goodger E, Nalianda D. Life cycle greenhouse gas
analysis of biojet fuels with a technical investigation into their impact onjet engine
performance. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;77:26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2015.03.005.
[20] Timko MT, Herndon SC, EdlR Blanco, Wood EC, Yu Z, Miake-Lye RC, et al.
Combustion products of petroleum jet fuel, a fischer-tropsch synthetic fuel, and a
biomass fatty acid methyl ester fuel for a gas turbine engine. Combust Sci Technol
2010;183(10):1039–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2011.581717.
[21] Shankar VSB, Khandelwal B. Comparison of Jet Fuel produced by Shale oil and
Biomass: Manufacturing Emission and Performance. AIAA - JPC; 2013.
[22] Mofijur M, Hazrat MA, Rasul MG, Mahmudul HM. Comparative evaluation of
edible and non-edible oil methyl ester performance in a vehicular engine ☆.
Energy Procedia 2015;75:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.134.
[23] Hileman JI, Stratton RW. Alternative jet fuel feasibility. Transp Policy
2014;34:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.018.
[24] International Air Transport Association. Fact Sheet: Alternative Fuels, 2013.
[25] United States Government Accountability Office. Alternative Jet Fuels: Federal
Activities Support Development and Usage, but Long-term Commercial Viability
Hinges on Market Factors; 2014.
[26] International Air Transport Association Fact Sheet: Alternative Fuels 2016.
[27] Liu G, Yan B, Chen G. Technical review on jet fuel production. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;25(5):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.025.
14
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
[28] Mawhood R, Cobas AR, Slade R. Establishing a European renewable jet fuel supply
chain: the technoeconomic potential of biomass conversion technologies. 2014.
[29] Blakey S, Rye L, Wilson CW. Aviation gas turbine alternative fuels: a review. Proc
Combust Inst 2011;33(2):2863–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.09.011.
[30] International Air Transport Association IATA Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap
2015.
[31] Sims RE, Mabee W, Saddler JN, Taylor M. An overview of second generation
biofuel technologies. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(6):1570–80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.046.
[32] Wang WC, Ling T. Bio-jet fuel conversion technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;53:801–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.016.
[33] Wang HL, Hao R, Pei HS, Wang HM, Chen XW, Tucker MP, et al. Biomass-derived
lignin to jet fuel range hydrocarbons via aqueous phase hydrodeoxygenation.
Green Chem 2015;17(12):5131–5. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5GC01534K.
[34] Xia QN, Cuan Q, Liu XH, Gong XQ, Lu GZ, Wang YQ. Pd/NbOPO₄ multifunctional
catalyst for the direct production of liquid alkanes from aldol adducts of furans.
Angew Chem 2014;53(37):9755. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201403440.
[35] Sacia ER, Balakrishnan M, Deaner MH, Goulas KA, Toste FD, Bell AT. Highly se-
lective condensation of biomass-derived methyl ketones as a source of aviation
fuel. ChemSusChem 2015;8(10):1726. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201500002.
[36] Hari TK, Yaakob Z, Binitha NN. Aviation biofuel from renewable resources: routes,
opportunities and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:1234–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.095.
[37] Gutiérrez-Antonio C, Gómez-Castro F, de Lira-Flores J, Hernández S. A review on
the production processes of renewable jet fuel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;79:709–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.108.
[38] Chiaramonti D, Prussi M, Buffi M, Tacconi D. Sustainable bio kerosene: process
routes and industrial demonstration activities in aviation biofuels. Appl Energy
2014;136:767–74.
[39] Diederichs GW, Mandegari MA, Farzad S, Görgens JF. Techno-economic compar-
ison of biojet fuel production from lignocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane
juice. Bioresour Technol 2016;216:331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.
05.090.
[40] Healey AL, Lee DJ, Furtado A, Simmons BA, Henry RJ. Efficient eucalypt cell wall
deconstruction and conversion for sustainable lignocellulosic biofuels. Front
Bioeng Biotechnol 2015;3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00190.
[41] Azad AK, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Sharma SC. Review of non-edible biofuel re-
sources in Australia for second generation (2G) biofuel conversion. In:
International green energy conference, Tainjin, China; 2014, p. 867–78.
[42] Cvetkovic B, Cvetkovic I, Kojcin A, Trzin D, Bankovic-Ilic I, Stamenkovic O, et al.
Side-stream products of edible oil refining as feedstocks in biodiesel production.
Recycl Sustainable Dev 2016;9(1):28–46.
[43] Suresh P. Environmental and economic assessment of transportation fuels from
municipal solid waste. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technolog; 2016.
[44] United States Department of Energy. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a
Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, 2011.
[45] Zhu LD, Xu ZB, Qin L, Wang ZM, Hiltunen E, Li ZH. Oil production from pilot-scale
microalgae cultivation: an economics evaluation. Energy Sources Part B
2016;11(1):11–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2015.1052594.
[46] Güell BM, Bugge M, Kempegowda RS, George A, Paap SM. Benchmark of con-
version and production technologies for synthetic biofuels for aviation. Norway:
SINTEF Energy Research; 2012.
[47] Prins MJ. Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction. Techn
Univ Eindhoven Eindhoven 2005.
[48] Thek G, Obernberger I. Wood pellet production costs under Austrian and in
comparison to Swedish framework conditions. Biomass Bioenergy
2004;27(6):671–93.
[49] Morgan T, Santillan-Jimenez E, Harman-Ware AE, Ji Y, Grubb D, Crocker M.
Catalytic deoxygenation of triglycerides to hydrocarbons over supported nickel
catalysts. Chem Eng J 2012;189–190(2):346–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.
2012.02.027.
[50] Yang Y, Wang Q, Zhang X, Wang L, Li G. Hydrotreating of C18 fatty acids to hy-
drocarbons on sulphided NiW/SiO₂–Al₂O3. Fuel Process Technol 2013. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.05.008.
[51] Wang H, Yan S, Salley SO, Ng KYS. Support effects on hydrotreating of soybean oil
over NiMo carbide catalyst. Fuel 2013;111(3):81–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2013.04.066.
[52] Hari TK, Yaakob Z. Production of diesel fuel by the hydrotreatment of jatropha oil
derived fatty acid methyl esters over γ-Al2O3 and SiO2 supported NiCo bimetallic
catalysts. Reaction Kinetics, Mech Catal 2015;116(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11144-015-0874-8.
[53] Galadima A, Muraza O. Catalytic upgrading of vegetable oils into jet fuels range
hydrocarbons using heterogeneous catalysts: a review. J Ind Eng Chem
2015;29:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2015.03.030.
[54] Fu J, Lu X, Savage PE. Hydrothermal decarboxylation and hydrogenation of fatty
acids over Pt/C. ChemSusChem 2011;4(4):481–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.
201000370.
[55] Chang MJ, Park GW, Choi JDR, Kang JW, Kim SM, Lee WH, et al. Steam reforming
of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) over supported Pt/Al2O3 catalysts. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2011;36(13):7505–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.03.126.
[56] Mo N, Savage PE. Hydrothermal catalytic cracking of fatty acids with HZSM-5.
ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2014;2(1):88–94. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc400368n.
[57] Lu M, Liu X, Li Y, Nie Y, Lu X, Deng D, et al. Hydrocracking of bio-alkanes over Pt/
Al-MCM-41 mesoporous molecular sieves for bio-jet fuel production. J Renew
Sustain Energy 2016;8(5):98. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4962561.
[58] Verma D, Kumar R, Rana BS, Sinha AK. Aviation fuel production from lipids by a
H. Wei, et al.
single-step route using hierarchical mesoporous zeolites. Energy Environ Sci
2011;4(5):1667–71. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EE00744G.
[59] Li T, Cheng J, Huang R, Zhou J, Cen K. Conversion of waste cooking oil to jet
biofuel with nickel-based mesoporous zeolite Y catalyst. Bioresour Technol
2015;197:289–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.115.
[60] Wu X, Jiang P, Jin F, Liu J, Zhang Y, Zhu L, et al. Production of jet fuel range
biofuels by catalytic transformation of triglycerides based oils. Fuel
2017;188:205–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.10.030.
[61] Li L, Coppola E, Rine J, Miller JL, Walker D. Catalytic hydrothermal conversion of
triglycerides to non-ester biofuels. Energy Fuels 2010;24(2):1305–15. https://doi.
org/10.1021/ef901163a.
[62] Lee IG, Lee H, Park SH, Jung SC, Kim SC, Ko CH, et al. Catalytic hydro-
deoxygenation of bio-oils derived from pyrolysis of cork oak using supercritical
ethanol. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2017. https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2017.13348.
[63] Santana A, Maçaira J, Larrayoz MA. Continuous production of biodiesel from ve-
getable oil using supercritical ethanol/carbon dioxide mixtures. Fuel Process
Technol 2012;96(2):214–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.12.021.
[64] Isikgor F, Becer CR. Lignocellulosic biomass: a sustainable platform for the pro-
duction of bio-based chemicals and polymers. Polym Chem 2015;6(25):4497–559.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C5PY00263J.
[65] Somerville C, Youngs H, Taylor C, Davis SC, Long SP. Feedstocks for lignocellulosic
biofuels. Science 2010;329(5993):790–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1189268.
[66] Sun Y, Cheng J. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a
review. Bioresour Technol 2002;83(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-
8524(01)00212-7.
[67] Ajam M, Woolard C, Viljoen CL. Biomass pyrolysis oil as a renewable feedstock for
bio-jet fuel. In: I3th international conference on stability, handling and use of li-
quid fuels. Curran Associates Inc. Proceedings; 2013, p. 48–96.
[68] Xu X, Zhang C, Liu Y, Zhai Y, Zhang R. Two-step catalytic hydrodeoxygenation of
fast pyrolysis oil to hydrocarbon liquid fuels. Chemosphere 2013;93(4):652–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.060.
[69] Wang J, Bi P, Zhang Y, Xue H, Jiang P, Wu X, et al. Preparation of jet fuel range
hydrocarbons by catalytic transformation of bio-oil derived from fast pyrolysis of
straw stalk. Energy 2015;86:488–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.
053.
[70] Radlein D, Quignard A. A short historical review of fast pyrolysis of biomass. Oil
Gas Sci Technol 2013;68(4):765–83. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2013162.
[71] Abate S, Giorgianni G, Lanzafame P, Perathoner S, Centi G. Multifunctional HDO/
selective cracking Ni/HBEA catalysts to produce jet fuel and diesel from bio-oils.
Chem Eng Trans 2016;50:259–64. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1650044.
[72] Shi W, Gao Y, Song S, Zhao Y. One-pot conversion of bio-oil to diesel- and jet-fuel-
range hydrocarbons in supercritical cyclohexane. Ind Eng Chem Res
2014;53(28):11557–65. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie501682r.
[73] Li G, Li N, Wang X, Sheng X, Li S, Wang A, et al. Synthesis of diesel or jet fuel range
cycloalkanes with 2-methylfuran and cyclopentanone from lignocellulose. Energy
Fuels 2014;28(8):5112–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef500676z.
[74] Li S, Li N, Wang W, Li L, Wang A, Wang X, et al. Synthesis of jet fuel range
branched cycloalkanes with mesityl oxide and 2-methylfuran from lignocellulose.
Sci Rep 2016;6:32379. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32379.
[75] Cao Z, Engelhardt J, Dierks M, Clough MT, Wang G-H, Heracleous E, et al.
Catalysis meets nonthermal separation for the production of (alkyl)phenols and
hydrocarbons from pyrolysis oil. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition
2017;56(9):2334–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201610405.
[76] Duan H, Dong J, Gu X, Peng Y-K, Chen W, Issariyakul T, et al. Hydrodeoxygenation
of water-insoluble bio-oil to alkanes using a highly dispersed Pd-Mo catalyst.
Nature Commun 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00596-3.
[77] Nor Afzanizam BS, Mohammad Nazri BMJ, Chongcheng T, Johan N. A review of
biomass gasification technology to produce syngas. Am-Eur J Sustain Agric
2014;8(7).
[78] Kreutz TG, Larson ED, Liu G, Williams RH, Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and
Biomass. In: 25th annual international Pittsburgh coal conference, Vol. 29, No. 2.
10. Pittsburg: Princeton University; 2008.
[79] Soled SL, Iglesia E, Fiato RA, Baumgartner JE, Vroman H, Miseo S. Control of metal
dispersion and structure by changes in the solid-state chemistry of supported co-
balt fischer-tropsch catalysts. Top Catal 2003;26(1):101–9. https://doi.org/10.
1023/B:TOCA.0000012990.83630.f9.
[80] Vannice MA, Garten RL. Influence of the support on the catalytic behavior of ru-
thenium in CO/H/sub 2/synthesis reactions. J Catal 1980;63(1(1)):255–60.
[81] Steynberg AP, Dry ME, Davis BH, Breman BB. Fischer-Tropsch reactors. Stud Surf
Sci Catal 2004;152:64–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2991(04)80459-2.
[82] Luque R, Osa ARDL, Campelo JM, Romero AA, Valverde JL, Sanchez P. Design and
development of catalysts for Biomass-To-Liquid-Fischer-Tropsch (BTL-FT) pro-
cesses for biofuels production. Energy Environ Sci 2012;5(1):5186–202. https://
doi.org/10.1039/C1EE02238E.
[83] Zhang CH, Yang Y, Teng BT, Li TZ, Zheng HY, Xiang HW, et al. Study of an iron-
manganese Fischer-Tropsch synthesis catalyst promoted with copper. J Catal
2006;237(2):405–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2005.11.004.
[84] Li J, Cheng X, Zhang C, Dong W, Yang Y, Li Y. Comparative study of iron-based
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis catalysts promoted with strontium or potassium. Catal
Lett 2016;146(12):2574–84.
[85] Xu D, Li W, Duan H, Ge Q, Xu H. Reaction performance and characterization of Co/
Al2O3 Fischer-Tropsch catalysts promoted with Pt Pd and Ru. Catal Lett
2005;102(3):229–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-005-5861-7.
[86] Leckel D. Diesel Production from Fischer−Tropsch: The Past, the Present, and
New Concepts. Energy Fuels 2009;23(5):2342–58. https://doi.org/10.1021/
15
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
ef900064c.
[87] Fox EB, Liu ZW, Liu ZT. Ultraclean fuels production and utilization for the twenty-
first century: advances toward sustainable transportation fuels. Energy Fuels
2013;27(11):6335–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef401094t.
[88] Feng C, Brewer CE. Producing jet fuel from biomass lignin: potential pathways to
alkyl-benzenes and cycloalkanes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;72:673–722.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.030.
[89] Kim JY, Lee JH, Park J, Kim JK, An D, Song IK, et al. Catalytic pyrolysis of lignin
over HZSM-5 catalysts: effect of various parameters on the production of aromatic
hydrocarbon. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2015;114:273–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2015.06.007.
[90] Mullen CA, Boateng AA. Catalytic pyrolysis-GC/MS of lignin from several sources.
Fuel Process Technol 2010;91(11):1446–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.
2010.05.022.
[91] Pandey MP, Kim CS. Lignin depolymerization and conversion: a review of ther-
mochemical methods. Chem Eng Technol 2011;34(1):29–41. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ceat.201000270.
[92] Mortensen PM, Grunwaldt JD, Jensen PA, Knudsen KG, Jensen AD. A review of
catalytic upgrading of bio-oil to engine fuels. Appl Catal A 2011;407(1–2):1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2011.08.046.
[93] Garciapintos D, Voss J, Jensen AD, Studt F. Hydrodeoxygenation of phenol to
benzene and cyclohexane on Rh(111) and Rh(211) surfaces: insights from density
functional theory. J Phys Chem C 2016. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.
6b02970.
[94] Shao Y, Xia Q, Dong L, Liu X, Han X, Parker SF, et al. Selective production of
arenes via direct lignin upgrading over a niobium-based catalyst. Nature Commun
2017;8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms16104.
[95] Budsberg E, Crawford JT, Morgan H, Wei SC, Bura R, Gustafson R. Hydrocarbon
bio-jet fuel from bioconversion of poplar biomass: life cycle assessment. Biotechnol
Biofuels 2016;9(1):170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0582-2.
[96] Li C, Zhao X, Wang A, Huber GW, Zhang T. Catalytic transformation of lignin for
the production of chemicals and fuels. Chem Rev 2015;115(21):11559–624.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00155.
[97] Cao Z, Dierks M, Clough MT, de Castro IBD, Rinaldi R. A convergent approach for a
deep converting lignin-first biorefinery rendering high-energy-density drop-in
fuels. Joule 2018;2(6):1118–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.03.012.
[98] Ben H, Mu W, Deng Y, Ragauskas AJ. Production of renewable gasoline from
aqueous phase hydrogenation of lignin pyrolysis oil. Fuel 2013;103:1148–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.08.039.
[99] Bond JQ, Upadhye AA, Olcay H, Tompsett GA, Jungho J, Xing R, et al. Production
of renewable jet fuel range alkanes and commodity chemicals from integrated
catalytic processing of biomass. Energy Environ Sci 2014;7(4):1500–23. https://
doi.org/10.1039/c3ee43846e.
[100] Davis R, Tao L, Scarlata C, Tan ECD, Ross J, Lukas J, et al. Process design and
economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbons: dilute-
acid and enzymatic deconstruction of biomass to sugars and catalytic conversion
of sugars to hydrocarbons (No. NREL/TP-5100-60223). National Renewable
Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States); 2015.
[101] Al-Zuhair S, Ahmed K, Abdulrazak A, El-Naas MH. Synergistic effect of pretreat-
ment and hydrolysis enzymes on the production of fermentable sugars from date
palm lignocellulosic waste. J Ind Eng Chem 2013;19(2):413–5. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jiec.2012.09.022.
[102] Milbrandt A, Kinchin C, Mccormick R. The Feasibility of Producing and Using
Biomass-Based Diesel and Jet Fuel in the United States (No. NREL/TP-6A20-
58015). National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States);
2013. https://doi/org/10.2172/1260324.
[103] Zhu F, Zhong X, Hu M, Lu L, Deng Z, Liu T. In vitro reconstitution of mevalonate
pathway and targeted engineering of farnesene overproduction in Escherichia coli.
Biotechnol Bioeng 2014;111(7):1396–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25198.
[104] Davis R, Biddy M, Tan E, Tao L, Jones S. Biological conversion of sugars to hy-
drocarbons technology pathway. Office Sci Tech Inf Tech Rep 2013. https://doi.
org/10.2172/1073586.
[105] Yu AQ, Pratomo Juwono NK, Leong SS, Chang MW. Production of fatty acid-de-
rived valuable chemicals in synthetic microbes. Front Bioeng Biotechnol
2014;2:78. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2014.00078.
[106] Bomgardner M. Renewables amyris raises $84 million from investors for farnesene
scale-up. Chemengnews 2013;90(10):8.
[107] Mawhood R, Gazis E, Hoefnagels R, Jong SD, Slade R. Technological and com-
mercial maturity of aviation biofuels: emerging options to produce jet from lig-
nocellulosic biomass. International conference on sustainable energy technologies:
sustainable energy for a resilient future. 2015.
[108] Greentech Media. LS9's genetic breakthrough: will it produce biofuels as scale?
2010.
[109] McAuliffe JC, Nielsen AT, Peres CM, Vaviline DV, Wells DH. Enhanced production
of isoprene using host cells having decreased ispa activity, U.S. Patent 9,388,431,
issued July 12, 2016.
[110] Kim B, Lee S, Jeong D, Yang J, Lee J. Re-distribution of carbon flux toward 2,3-
butanediol production in Klebsiella by metabolic engineering. New Biotechnol
2014;31(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105322. S162-S.
[111] Jong SD, Hoefnagels R, Faaij A, Slade R, Mawhood R, Junginger M. The feasibility
of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels - a comprehensive
techno-economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 2015;9(6):778–800.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1613.
[112] Tompsett GA, Li N, Huber GW. 8. Catalytic Conversion of Sugars to Fuels.
Thermochemical processing of biomass. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2011:232-79.
[113] Biddy MJ, Jones SB. Catalytic upgrading of sugars to hydrocarbons technology
H. Wei, et al.
pathway. Office Sci Tech Inf Tech Rep 2013.
[114] Blommel PG, Cortright RD. Production of Conventional Liquid Fuels from Sugars.
Aug, 25, 2008, p. 1–14.
[115] Wang TJ, Qiu SB, Weng YJ, Chen LG, Liu QY, Long JX, et al. Liquid fuel production
by aqueous phase catalytic transformation of biomass for aviation. Energy
Procedia 2015;61:432–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.1142.
[116] Chheda JN, Huber GW, Dumesic JA. Liquid-phase catalytic processing of biomass-
derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to fuels and chemicals. Angew Chem Int Ed
2007;46(38):7164–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200604274.
[117] Li C, Cai H, Zhang B, Li W, Pei G, Dai T, et al. Tailored one-pot production of furan-
based fuels from fructose in an ionic liquid biphasic solvent system. Chin J Catal
2015;36(9):1638–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1872-2067(15)60927-5.
[118] Kennes D, Abubackar HN, Diaz M, Veiga MC, Kennes C. Bioethanol production
from biomass: carbohydrate vs syngas fermentation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2016;91(2):304–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4842.
[119] Carter MK. Direct catalytic conversion of sugars to ethanol. U.S. Patent 9,533,929,
issued January 3, 2017.
[120] Serrano-Ruiz JC, Ramos-Fernández EV, Sepúlveda-Escribano A. From biodiesel
and bioethanol to liquid hydrocarbon fuels: new hydrotreating and advanced
microbial technologies. Energy Environ Sci 2012;5(2):5638. https://doi.org/10.
1039/C1EE02418C.
[121] Tret’yakov VF, Makarfi YI, Tret’yakov KV, Frantsuzova NA, Talyshinskii RM. The
catalytic conversion of bioethanol to hydrocarbon fuel: a review and study. Catal
Indus 2010;2(4):402–20.
[122] Zhang M, Yu Y. Dehydration of ethanol to ethylene. Ind Eng Chem Res
2013;52(28):9505–14. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie401157c.
[123] Phung TK, Hernández LP, Lagazzo A, Busca G. Dehydration of ethanol over zeo-
lites, silica alumina and alumina: Lewis acidity, Brønsted acidity and confinement
effects. Appl Catal A 2015;493:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2014.12.
047.
[124] And SAS, Brookhart M. Ethylene oligomerization and propylene dimerization
using cationic (α-Diimine) nickel (II) catalysts. Organometallics 2014;18(1).
https://doi.org/10.1021/om980736t.
[125] Andrei RD, Popa MI, Fajula F, Hulea V. Heterogeneous oligomerization of ethylene
over highly active and stable Ni-AlSBA-15 mesoporous catalysts. J Catal
2015;323:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2014.12.027.
[126] Taylor JD, Jenni MM, Peters MW. Dehydration of fermented isobutanol for the
production of renewable chemicals and fuels. Top Catal 2010;53(15):1224–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-010-9567-8.
[127] Dong HP, Kim SS, Pinnavaia TJ, Tzompantzi F, Prince J, Valente JS. Selective
isobutene oligomerization by mesoporous MSU-SBEA catalysts. J Phys Chem C
2011;115(13):5809–16. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp111642b.
[128] Jeong S, Kim H, Bae JH, Kim DH, Peden CHF, Park YK, et al. Synthesis of butenes
through 2-butanol dehydration over mesoporous materials produced from fer-
rierite. Catal Today 2012;185(1):191–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2011.
09.017.
[129] John M, Alexopoulos K, Reyniers MF, Marin GB. Reaction path analysis for 1-
butanol dehydration in H-ZSM-5 zeolite: Ab initio and microkinetic modeling. J
Catal 2015;330:28–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2015.07.005.
[130] Wright ME, Harvey BG, Quintana RL. Diesel and jet fuels based on the oligo-
merization of butene. U.S. Patent 8,395,007, issued March 12, 2013.
[131] Mupondwa E, Li X, Tabil L, Falk K, Gugel R. Technoeconomic analysis of camelina
oil extraction as feedstock for biojet fuel in the Canadian Prairies. Biomass
Bioenergy 2016;95:221–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.014.
[132] Pearlson M, Wollersheim C, Hileman J. A techno-economic review of hydro-
processed renewable esters and fatty acids for jet fuel production. Biofuels,
Bioprod Biorefin 2013;7(1):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1378.
[133] Wang WC. Techno-economic analysis of a bio-refinery process for producing
Hydro-processed Renewable Jet fuel from Jatropha. Renew Energy
2016;95:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.107.
[134] Seber G, Malina R, Pearlson MN, Olcay H, Hileman JI, Barrett SRH. Environmental
and economic assessment of producing hydroprocessed jet and diesel fuel from
waste oils and tallow. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;67(supplement 6):108–18. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.024.
[135] Camacho Gonzalez D. Techno-economic analysis of jet fuel production from waste
vegetable oil in Mexico. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016.
[136] Klein-Marcuschamer D, Turner C, Allen M, Gray P, Dietzgen RG, Gresshoff PM,
et al. Technoeconomic analysis of renewable aviation fuel from microalgae,
Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 2013;7(4):416–28.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1404.
[137] Natelson RH, Wang WC, Roberts WL, Zering KD. Technoeconomic analysis of jet
fuel production from hydrolysis, decarboxylation, and reforming of camelina oil.
Biomass Bioenergy 2015;75:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.
16
Fuel 254 (2019) 115599
001.
[138] Atsonios K, Kougioumtzis MA, Panopoulos KD, Kakaras E. Alternative thermo-
chemical routes for aviation biofuels via alcohols synthesis: process modeling,
techno-economic assessment and comparison. Appl Energy 2015;138(2):346–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.056.
[139] Staples MD, Malina R, Olcay H, Pearlson MN, Hileman JI, Boies A, et al. Lifecycle
greenhouse gas footprint and minimum selling price of renewable diesel and jet
fuel from fermentation and advanced fermentation production technologies.
Energy Environ Sci 2014;7(5):1545. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3EE43655A.
[140] Yao G, Staples MD, Malina R, Tyner WE. Stochastic techno-economic analysis of
alcohol-to-jet fuel production. Biotechnol Biofuels 2017;10(1):18. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s13068-017-0702-7.
[141] Crawford JT, Shan CW, Budsberg E, Morgan H, Bura R, Gustafson R. Hydrocarbon
bio-jet fuel from bioconversion of poplar biomass: techno-economic assessment.
Biotechnol Biofuels 2016;9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0545-7.
[142] Li Y, Chen L, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Wang T, Qiu S, et al. Process and techno-economic
analysis of bio-jet fuel-range hydrocarbon production from lignocellulosic biomass
via aqueous phase deconstruction and catalytic conversion. Energy Procedia
2017;105:675–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.374.
[143] Shonnard DR, Larry W, Kalnes TN. Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: sustain-
able advanced biofuels. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2010;29(29):382–92.
[144] Tzanetis KF, Posada JA, Ramirez A. Analysis of biomass hydrothermal liquefaction
and biocrude-oil upgrading for renewable jet fuel production: The impact of re-
action conditions on production costs and GHG emissions performance. Renew
Energy 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.104.
[145] Stratton RW, Wong HM, Hileman JI. Quantifying variability in life cycle green-
house gas inventories of alternative middle distillate transportation fuels. Environ
Sci Technol 2011;45(10):4637–44. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102597f.
[146] Jong SD, Antonissen K, Hoefnagels R, Lonza L, Wang M, Faaij A, et al. Life-cycle
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production.
Biotechnol Biofuels 2017;10(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0739-7.
[147] Xue L, Mupondwa E. Life cycle assessment of camelina oil derived biodiesel and jet
fuel in the Canadian Prairies. Sci Total Environ 2014;481(1):17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.003.
[148] Han J, Elgowainy A, Cai H, Wang MQ. Life-cycle analysis of bio-based aviation
fuels. Bioresour Technol 2013;150(4):447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2013.07.153.
[149] Bailis RE, Baka JE. Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha
curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44(22):8684–91. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es1019178.
[150] Cox K, Renouf M, Dargan A, Turner C, Kleinmarcuschamer D. Environmental life
cycle assessment (LCA) of aviation biofuel from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata,
and sugarcane molasses. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 2014;8(4):579–93. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bbb.1488.
[151] Fortier MOP, Roberts GW, Staggwilliams SM, Sturm BSM. Life cycle assessment of
bio-jet fuel from hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae. Appl Energy
2014;122(5):73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.077.
[152] Elgowainy A, Han J, Wang M, Carter N, Stratton R, Hileman J, et al. Life-cycle
analysis of alternative aviation fuels in GREET. Office Sci Tech Inf Tech Rep 2012.
[153] Staples MD, Olcay H, Malina R, Trivedi P, Pearlson MN, Strzepek K, et al. Water
consumption footprint and land requirements of large-scale alternative diesel and
jet fuel production. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47(21):12557–65. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es4030782.
[154] Shi R, Ukaew S, Archer DW, Lee JH, Pearlson MN, Lewis KC, et al. Life cycle water
footprint analysis for rapeseed derived jet fuel in North Dakota. ACS Sustain Chem
Eng 2017;5(5):3845–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b02956.
[155] Gosens J, Kåberger T, Wang Y. China's next renewable energy revolution: goals
and mechanisms in the 13th Five Year Plan for energy. Energy Sci Eng
2017;5(3):141–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.161.
[156] Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders. Passenger biofuel flights, 2016.
[157] Institute for, Resource Efficiencyand Energy Strategies. Biofuels in Aviation Major
Challenges Potentials Major R&D Activities and Needs 2010.
[158] ICAO. The Challenges for the Development and Deployment of Sustainable
Alternative Fuels in Aviation, 2013.
[159] Nair S, Paulose H. Emergence of green business models: the case of algae biofuel
for aviation. Energy Policy 2014;65(65):175–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2013.10.034.
[160] Gregg JS, Smith SJ. Global and regional potential for bioenergy from agricultural
and forestry residue biomass. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 2010;15(3):241–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9215-4.
[161] Han XY, Xu YQ, Kumar A, Lu XW. Decoupling analysis of transportation carbon
emissions and economic growth in China. Environ Prog Sustain Energy
2018;37(5):1696–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12857.