Accepted Manuscript

Oil palm empty fruit bunches as a promising feedstock for bioethanol production in
Malaysia

Eryati Derman, Rahmath Abdulla, Hartinie Marbawi, Mohd Khalizan Sabullah

PII: S0960-1481(18)30633-5

DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2018.06.003

Reference: RENE 10159

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 18 June 2017

Accepted Date: 01 June 2018

Please cite this article as: Eryati Derman, Rahmath Abdulla, Hartinie Marbawi, Mohd Khalizan
Sabullah, Oil palm empty fruit bunches as a promising feedstock for bioethanol production in
Malaysia, Renewable Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.06.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Oil palm empty fruit bunches as a promising feedstock for bioethanol production in
2 Malaysia

3 Eryati Derman ª, Rahmath Abdulla ª,b, Hartinie Marbawi ª, Mohd Khalizan Sabullah ª

4 ª Faculty of Science and Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400
5 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

6 b Energy Research Unit, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu,
7 Sabah, Malaysia

10 Corresponding author. Tel.: +6 088-320000 (ext. 5592)

11 E-mail address: rahmahabdulla@[Link] (Rahmath Abdulla)

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12 Abstract

13 Depletion of the fossil fuels together with an increase in energy demand is considered as a
14 serious threat to the world. Furthermore, fuel versus food dilemma plays an important role in
15 search of sustainable non-edible feedstocks for production of biofuels. Liquid biofuels such
16 as bioethanol can pave way for a cleaner earth together with less dependency on fossil fuels.
17 Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) is one of the potential biomass wastes, which can be utilized as a
18 raw material for bioethanol production. The high availability of EFBs as a biowaste in
19 Malaysia can endorse the concept of waste-to-wealth that had been long dreamed since late
20 1990, where unwanted wastes are converted into valuable energy. The three important steps
21 in bioethanol production from EFBs, i.e. pretreatment, hydrolysis, and fermentation are
22 discussed in this paper. This review paper highlights some available literature and detailed
23 information regarding the EFBs as a potential feedstock for bioethanol production in
24 Malaysia. An environmental-friendly bioenergy and zero waste can be anticipated in
25 Malaysia which in turn promotes an economically sustainable bioethanol production. This
26 review is vital as it explores the EFBs potential as a promising feedstock for bioethanol
27 which can be implemented for future commercial purpose.

28 Keywords: Empty fruit bunches; Bioethanol; Pretreatment; Hydrolysis; Fermentation.

29

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

31 1. Introduction

32 The real world has an excessive dependence on fossil fuels as a major source of energy and
33 these non-renewable resources had been diminishing, hence this situation leads to the energy
34 crisis. Energy security and shortage have become the main concern all around the globe [1].
35 Malaysia particularly will be experiencing drastic growth in economy and population. Thus,
36 alternative energy sources need to be explored to support the growing commercial energy
37 demand [2]. Currently, biofuels production have been sought as a new way to encounter the
38 depletion of fossil fuels problem [3]. According to Bazmi et al., biomass can be used to
39 generate electricity namely bio-power as stated in Table 1 [4]. Liquid fuels known as
40 pyrolysis oil is produced from biomass through the pyrolysis process, where the biomass is
41 heated in the absence of oxygen. These pyrolysis oils will burn like petroleum which can
42 generate the electricity [4]. Biodiesel, one of the liquid biofuels is also popular as a non-
43 polluting and biodegradable fuel. It can be produced through the transesterification process
44 [5]. However, compared with other energy conversion technologies, biomass-to-bioethanol
45 productions have many advantages.

46 Bioethanol derived from food sources are known as first generation bioethanol, where
47 most of the ethanol used for the transportation fuel is produced from the sucrose or starch [6].
48 First generation bioethanol has the potential to become the main source of energy supply to
49 replace fossil fuels, but its production is hindered by issues like tropical forests’ destruction.
50 While, second generation bioethanol, which utilizes non-edible sources such as
51 lignocellulosic biomass to produce bioethanol, is shown to be more appropriate as the source
52 of renewable energy. According to Wiloso et al. [7] second generation bioethanol performs
53 better than fossil fuels for the two major impact categories, global warning, and net energy
54 output. However, the third generation bioethanol is promoting algae as its ideal feedstock [8].
55 Table 2 shows the comparison of three different bioethanol generations in terms of their
56 feedstocks, yield, conversion process, advantages and drawback.

57 Bioethanol is considered as the optimum alternative fuel for gasoline. It is a

58 significant fuel because by reducing the use of petroleum, it supports a sustainable economy
59 for the country [9]. It is an environmentally friendly fuel and has the potential to provide a
60 comparable engine performance results. Bioethanol production from biomass is one way to
61 reduce both environmental pollution and consumption of crude oil. It is suitable for the mixed
62 fuel in the gasoline engine due to its low cetane number; high octane number and high heat of

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

63 vaporization. However, there are obstacles and challenges such as biomass availability, cost
64 and technology, flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) and environmental problems that need to be
65 addressed. Thus, the introduction of energy policy is vital in implementing and promoting
66 bioethanol effectively in Malaysia [10].

67 Developing a sustainable energy in Malaysia is important as it has abundant

68 renewable biomass energy resources [11,12]. Table 3 presents different types of the available
69 renewable energy resources in Malaysia. Based on this table, forest residues and oil palm
70 biomass are found to have potentially high energy values respectively 11,883 and 6,291
71 million Malaysian Ringgits (RM) per year (2665.84 and 1411.33 million US Dollars)
72 [2,13,14]. Renewable energy (RE) was first introduced in the country’s energy mix through
73 the Fifth-Fuel Policy that formulated under the Eight Malaysia Plan (8MP-2001-2005) in
74 order to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and to tackle the rising global concern about
75 climate change [15]. In the 8MP, sustainable developments of renewable and depletable
76 energy resources were the key emphasis in the plan to promote the efficient utilization of
77 renewable energies as the fifth fuel resource [15,16]. RE is also expected as an ideal answer
78 to endorse sustainable development and in reducing global warming [4]. Researchers are also
79 looking for the economical way to produce alternative fuels and energy preferably from
80 biodegradable, eco-friendly and renewable raw materials. Biomass and renewable resources
81 have an important role and major contribution in the energy sector [17].

82 Food versus fuel dilemma has been the most critical issue which is extensively
83 focused and discussed. Therefore, production of biofuels derived from non-edible biomass
84 wastes is gaining attention as the second generation bioethanol [18,19]. As a matter of fact,
85 lignocellulosic biomass wastes such as Pteris (fern), Pennisetum purperum (Napier grass)
86 and oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) biomass had been used for research to produce bioethanol
87 [20,21]. The novelty of this review is to present the detailed information regarding the
88 potential of empty fruit bunches (EFBs) as a promising feedstock for bioethanol production
89 in Malaysia. This review also explores and highlights the importance of EFBs as a favorable
90 feedstock, its conversion process, challenges, economics and future prospects in Malaysia.
91 Potential of biomass waste EFBs from oil palm industries as a feedstock are discussed based
92 on several published research papers which can contribute to the development of bioethanol
93 industry in Malaysia.

4
94 Table 1

95 The potential scope of biomass utilization as energy resources.

Energy prospect Conversion Process Technology Energy generated Biomass source Reference
from biomass
utilization
Biofuels Pretreatment, hydrolysis, fermentation Bioethanol Seaweed solid wastes [22]
(ABE fermentation for butanol), Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) [23]
distillation, transesterification Micro-Algae Spirulina [24]
Oil palm trunk saps (OPTS) [25]
Pteris (fern) [20]
Sweet potato [26]
Bio-butanol Palm oil mill effluent [27]
Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) [28]
Palm kernel cake [29]
Biodiesel Palm oil mill effluent [30]
(POME) and microlagae
Bio-power Direct-firing, co-firing, gasification, Electricity generation Oil palm biomass waste [4]
pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion and
small, modular systems.
Biogas Fermentation, Steam gasification, Hydrogen Oil palm empty fruit bunch [31]
Supercritical water gasification (OPEFB) molasses
(SCWG) Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) [28,32,33]
Bio-oil (high- Fast pyrolysis Substitute for liquid fossil Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) [34]
density oxygenated fuels (burned in diesel
liquid) engines, turbines or boilers)
Bio-char (black Pyrolysis (Low temperature and low Fuel in form of briquettes, Empty fruit bunch [35]
solid) heating process) char-oil, char-water slurry
Composts Microbial activity using microbial Fertilizer POME and EFBs [36]
systems (fungi, bacteria) for composting

5
96 Table 2

97 Comparison of three different bioethanol generations.

Component First generation Second generation Third generation

[10,19] [18,37,38] [8,39–41]
Feedstock Sources Edible food sources which rich in Non-edible crops (Agricultural waste, Algal biomass
sugar, starch, and oil in their forest residues, and municipal solid - Microalgae
content. waste). - Macroalgae
Examples: Examples:
- Sugarcane [42] - Oil palm residues [45]
- Corn [43] - Food wastes [46]
- Sweet potato [26,44] -Cassava peels [47]
- Rice straw [48]
Biofuels yield Low Medium High
Conversion Sugar extraction, fermentation, Pretreatment, hydrolysis, fermentation, Hydrolysis, fermentation, distillation
process distillation and distillation
technologies
Advantages Relatively simple conversion No competition with food resources Rapid growth rate
process Energy security Greenhouse gas fixation ability
Business opportunities, employment High production capacity of lipids
generation (fat)
Better environment condition Do not compete with food or feed
crops
Disadvantage Food insecurity ("Food Vs Fuel" Cost of technology Limited investments and difficulties
dilemma) Recalcitrant structures of the feedstock in process
Environmental Degradation Environmental degradation Technical limitation
Tropical forests destruction

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

99 Table 3
100 Different types of renewable energy resources in Malaysia [2,13,14].
Renewable energy resources Energy Value in Million US Dollar/Year

Forest residues 2688.50 2665.84

Oil palm biomass 1511.83 1411.33

Mill residues 187.55 209.09

Municipal waste 42.62 52.27

Rice Husk 17.27 -

Landfill gas 0.90 -

101 2. Biomass in Malaysia

102 Biomass is one of the most important renewable energy resources that can fulfill the needs of
103 the growing industries. In Malaysia, agricultural biomass wastes are promising sources for
104 second generation bioethanol (SGB) production since the agricultural industries generate a
105 significant amount of biomass wastes [38]. These can solve the biomass disposal problems
106 especially from agricultural industries in Malaysia.

107 Goh et al. [49] estimated that the biomass availability in Malaysia is around 47, 402
108 dry kton/year. Thus, the wastes from these industries can be converted into value-added
109 products which in turn helps in reduction of environmental pollution (GHG emission) as well
110 as less dependency on fossil fuels [50,51]. Biomass produced from the palm oil industries is
111 getting more attention and is been extensively studied these days [52]. Immense interests in
112 the utilization of biomass as energy resources are mainly due to bio-resource sustainability,
113 economic reflection and environmental concerns [2].

114 Lignocellulosic biomass accounts for 50% of all the biomass available in the world,
115 which asserting its importance as a potential feedstock for bioethanol production [53]. Since
116 the major problem in the production of bioethanol is the lack of availability of cheaper
117 feedstocks, lignocellulosic biomass became one of the most promising feedstock due to its
118 renewability, less cost and high availability [54]. Lignocellulosic biomass has been identified
119 as a cheaper and effective feedstock among the potential bioenergy resources for the

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

120 production of bioethanol. Bioethanol production using lignocellulosic biomass is expected to

121 be preferable in terms of economics in the future as it does not compete with food crop and is
122 readily available [18]. Malaysia is predicted to produce a total amount of 47, 402 dry
123 kton/year of biomass which is from forest residues, agricultural wastes, and municipal solid
124 wastes. The total domestic and capacity demands of bioethanol production in Malaysia are
125 computed to be 6,677 and 26,161 ton/day, respectively [49].

126 Many studies had been done on bioethanol production from different types of
127 available biomass in Malaysia. For example, algae biofuels are emerging in Malaysia as a
128 new renewable energy feedstock [40,55]. Brown marine macroalgae, Padina tetrastromatica
129 was used to investigate its potential in the production of liquid biofuels (bioethanol and
130 biodiesel) [55]. Sustainable bioethanol production has also been studied using a lipid-
131 extracted biomass from Scenedesmus dimorphus to ensure the feasibility of the bioethanol
132 produced. The lipid-extracted biomass was used directly in the simultaneous saccharification
133 and fermentation process [56]. However, oil palm biomass which are the major wastes
134 discarded had been considered as the most valuable feedstock for bioethanol production in
135 Malaysia as the palm oil industry contributes up to 85.5% of the total biomass production
136 [16,50].

137 2.1 Oil Palm Biomass

138 Malaysia is currently one of the major producers and exporters of palm oil in the world as the
139 development of oil palm plantations and palm oil mills are advancing throughout the year.
140 Oil palm biomass waste constitutes about 47% of world palm oil production [13]. However,
141 due to rapid growth in the oil palm industries, a substantial amount of oil palm wastes are
142 generated and this causes so much of environmental concern [57]. Besides, oil palm biomass
143 has large potential in many applications which can be used to alter the wastes into value-
144 added products [57,58].

145 According to the Malaysia Palm Oil Board, the areas of the oil palm planted in 2016
146 throughout Malaysia are about 5.74 million hectares [59]. The growth of the present palm oil
147 biomass makes the crop ideal potential for the energy production. In 2017, a total of about
148 11.09 tonnes per hectares of fresh fruit bunches (FFBs) were harvested and processed in the
149 palm oil mills, which generated about 2.18 tonnes per hectares of crude palm oil [60]. The
150 rapid growth of palm oil production leads to increasing amount of biomass or the by-product

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

151 residues released from its extraction process. Fig. 1 shows the oil palm plantation in
152 Malaysia. Sabah shows the highest planted areas of oil palm with 1.55 million per hectares
153 followed by Sarawak state with 1.51 million per hectares of oil palm. While Peninsular
154 Malaysia with 11 different states only has a total of 2.67 million per hectares of oil palm [59].

155

156 Fig. 1. Oil palm plantation in Malaysia [61].

157 Malaysia is one of the major exporters of palm oil and various other agricultural
158 products such as paddy and rubber. However, the palm oil industry particularly generates a
159 huge amount of oil palm biomass residues especially after harvesting of oil palm fruits,
160 replantation of the trees and oil palm processing. The oil palm residues are empty fruit
161 bunches (EFBs), palm oil mill effluent (POME), palm kernel shell (PKS), oil palm trunks
162 (OPT), oil palm leaves (OPL), oil palm fronds (OPF) and mesocarp fiber (MF) [62,63].
163 Table 4 shows the types and quantities of oil palm products which have a potential in
164 generating energy [2,13,64]. EFBs are the second highest products generated from oil palm
165 industries which are around 15.8 to 17 million tonnes per year [13,16]. Disposal of these oil
166 palm biomass wastes is critical for both environmental protection and agricultural
167 profitability. Hence, excess biomass wastes can be utilized to produce a clean and sustainable
168 fuel for the future especially in Malaysia where large quantities of lignocellulosic biomass are
169 being discarded into the environment.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

170 Table 4

171 Types and quantities of oil palm products produced [2,13,16,64].

Types of oil palm products Quantity/annum (Million tons)
Fresh fruit bunches (FFB) ~18.0
Crude palm oil ~3.0
Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) 15.8-17.0
Fronds 12.9
Mesocarp fiber (MF) 9.6
Trunk 8.2
Shell 4.7-5.9
Palm Kernel 2.11

172 The motivation to turn palm biomass into wealth is further strengthened by the fact
173 that biomass constitutes up to 90% of the palm oil production, while the remaining 10%
174 consists of oil generated from the extraction process of oil palm [67,68]. Fig. 2 shows the
175 Fresh fruit bunches and Crude palm oil yield in Malaysia from 2007 to 2016 [69]. Based on
176 Fig. 2, about 20% of crude palm oil is produced when the fresh fruit bunches undergo
177 processing process in the oil palm mill. Hence, after the oil extraction process, about 80% of
178 oil palm biomass will be discarded as a waste. From the latest available data, the FFBs yield
179 was over 15.91 tonnes per hectares in 2016 as compared 18.48 tonnes per hectares in 2015
180 [64,69]. Pradeepkumar et al. [70] estimated that 23% of empty fruit bunches (EFBs) are
181 produced per tonne of FFBs processed in the oil palm mill. This would generate a waste of
182 over 4 tonnes per hectares of EFBs in 2016. Thus, it's clear that with an increase in the
183 production of palm oil in Malaysia the wastes generated from this also increases to a greater
184 extent.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFBs) and Crude Palm Oil Yield in Malaysia

25
Tonnes/ Hectares

20

15
Fresh fruit bunch (FFB)
Crude palm oil yield
10

0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
185

186 Fig. 2. Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFBs) and Crude Palm Oil Yield in Malaysia (Tonnes/Hectares)
187 [69].

188 3. Empty fruit bunches (EFBs)

189 Palm oil industries generate a massive amount of solid wastes in the form of lignocellulosic
190 residues. One of these major lignocellulosic biomass available in Malaysia is empty fruit
191 bunches (EFBs). Due to its favorable physiochemical characteristics and abundant supply, it
192 emerged as the potential biomass in producing biofuels [67]. Pradeepkumar et al. [70]
193 estimated that 23% of empty fruit bunches are produced per tonnes of processed fresh fruit
194 bunches in the oil palm mill. In 2016, the yield of FFBs was 15.91 tonnes per hectare, thus
195 the annual production of EFBs was estimated to be 3.66 tonnes per hectares of oil palm
196 production [64]. Hence, EFBs emerged as a potential feedstock for the production of the
197 liquid biofuel, bioethanol through a series of pretreatment, hydrolysis, saccharification and
198 fermentation methods [71,72].

199 EFBs are one of the cheapest feedstock found as alternative renewable bioresource
200 compared to the food sources, such as corn, sweet potato and other food stocks used for the
201 production of bioethanol [73–75]. Because of its high cellulose and sugar content, palm oil
202 EFBs are potential to be converted into bioethanol, a promising alternative fuel to gasoline
203 during the fermentative process [2,76]. Bioethanol also contributes to the decrease of imports
204 gasoline or oil through the partial substitution of these fossil fuels [77]. EFBs has the highest
11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

205 fiber yield and it is the only material utilized commercially for fiber extraction [70]. It serves
206 as a promising raw material for bioethanol production due to its potential as a source of
207 glucose [78].

208 3.1 Composition of EFBs

209 Oil palm EFBs are one of the major lignocellulosic biomass which consists of three major
210 components, namely cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin that are polymers of C5 and C6
211 sugars which can be utilized in bioethanol production [79]. Cellulose is the major component
212 of EFBs that can be converted into bioethanol via fermentation process [76,80]. If cellulose
213 content is higher in the sample, it can produce higher glucose. Meanwhile, lignin can produce
214 a compound known as phenol and hemicelluloses content may also be hydrolyzed to produce
215 xylose [81].

216 The composition of the oil palm EFBs before and after pretreatment process is shown
217 in Table 5; to further emphasize the suitability of this waste for bioethanol production. Based
218 on this table, the amounts of cellulose in EFBs are increases after pretreatment process was
219 done. Meanwhile, the hemicelluloses and lignin content in EFBs decreases after the process.
220 For example, lignin and hemicellulose content in the EFBs decreased to 11% and 5.69%
221 respectively, while the cellulose percentage increased to 68.86% as reported by Sudiyani et
222 al. [76]. Hence, a pretreatment process is important so that yields of fermentable sugars can
223 be increased from cellulose or hemicelluloses [81]. However, upon hydrothermal
224 pretreatment, contents of both cellulose and lignin increased from 37.1% and 22.3% to 55.4%
225 and 31.1 % respectively, while the hemicelluloses content decreased from 24.7% to 7.6%.
226 This shows that hydrothermal pretreatment is effective for high cellulose recovery and
227 hemicelluloses removal which is due to the acidic properties of liquid hot water that targets
228 mainly the hemicellulose component [82].
229

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

230 Table 5
231 The composition of the Oil palm empty fruit bunches (EFBs) before and after different
232 pretreatment processes.
Reference [81] [82] [83] [80] [76]
Pretreatment Chemical Hydrotherma Alkaline (1.5 Alkaline Alkaline
method (NaOH 10%) l (190˚C for M NaOH) (10% NaOH) (10% NaOH)
and 15 min) and steam
Irradiation explosion
Component
% EFBs untreated
Cellulose 30.41 37.1 32.47 36.59 37.26
Hemicellulose 20.70 24.7 29 24.97 14.62
Lignin 35.94 22.2 21.19 26.53 31.68
Ash - 1.3 - 1.79 6.69
Extractive - 3.5 - 10.12 1.34
% EFBs-treated
Cellulose 77.5 55.4 68 75.05 68.86
Hemicellulose 6.83 7.6 13 10.19 5.69
Lignin 10.32 31.1 10 8.11 11.02
Ash - 0.8 - 2.22 -
Extractive - - - 4.44 -
233 * Chemical composition of treated EFBs are based on the best result of pretreatment taken
234 from the respective journal.

235 3.2 Potential of EFBs for Bioethanol Production

236 The main residue of the palm oil industry, EFBs are one of the most recent renewable energy
237 resources [75,84–87]. EFBs are initially incinerated to produce bunch ash that is used as a
238 fertilizer in the oil palm field since it has high potassium content [70,88]. However,
239 incineration process causes severe air pollution. Thus, different route in the manipulation of
240 EFBs waste is researched. Instead of using it as a fertilizer, the EFBs are used as a raw
241 material in producing bioethanol which does not cause any environmental problem.

242 The yield of empty fruit bunches, EFBs in Malaysia as shown in Table 6 is based on a
243 study by Pradeepkumar et al. According to this study, it is estimated that for each tonne of

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

244 FFBs processed in the oil palm mill, 23% of EFBs are generated [70]. From the table, about 4
245 million tonnes per hectare of EFBs will be produced every year as a result of oil palm fresh
246 fruit bunch being processed in the industry. The potential production capacity of bioethanol
247 from EFBs in Malaysia is quantified in Table 4 according to the calculation described by
248 Goh et al. [49].

249 (1) Potential bioethanol from cellulose (tonnes)

250 = cellulose amount (tonnes) × theoretical yield (0.5111) × glucose recovery
251 efficiency (0.76) × glucose fermentation efficiency (0.75)
252
253 (2) Potential bioethanol from hemicelluloses (tonnes)
254 = hemicellulose amount (tonnes) × theoretical yield (0.5175) × xylose recovery
255 efficiency (0.90) × xylose fermentation efficiency (0.50)

256 The method above (1) and (2) is derived theoretically based on the sugar derived from
257 the cellulose and hemicellulose component in the empty fruit bunches: glucose and xylose.
258 Based on the stoichiometric ratio, glucose and xylose will produce 0.511 and 0.5175 of
259 ethanol respectively. Demirbas, 2005 reported that the efficiency of conversion recovery of
260 glucose from cellulose and of xylose from hemicellulose are 0.76 and 0.90 respectively; and
261 fermentation efficiency of ethanol from glucose and xylose are 0.75 and 0.50 respectively
262 [89]. Hence, the total potential of ethanol production from empty fruit bunches feedstock in
263 Malaysia (Table 6) is calculated by summing up the amount of potential from both cellulose
264 and hemicellulose conversions. The amount of ethanol produced from 2007 to 2016 in
265 Malaysia is about 0.6 to 0.7 a tonne from 4 million tonnes per hectares of EFBs discarded
266 from the oil palm processing industries.
267

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

268 Table 6
269 Potential ethanol production from EFBs feedstock in Malaysia from 2007-2016 [69,82].

Year Fresh fruit Empty fruit Potential of Potential of Total

bunches (FFBs) bunches, ethanol from ethanol from potential of
yield EFBs yield at EFBs ( 37.21 EFBs ( 24.7 % ethanol
(tonnes/hectare) 23% of FFBs % cellulose) hemicellulose) production
(tonnes/hectar from EFBs
e) (tonnes)
2007 19.93 4.58 0.496 0.263 0.759
2008 20.18 4.64 0.503 0.267 0.770
2009 19.20 4.42 0.479 0.254 0.733
2010 18.03 4.15 0.450 0.239 0.689
2011 19.69 4.53 0.491 0.261 0.752
2012 18.89 4.34 0.470 0.250 0.720
2013 19.02 4.37 0.474 0.251 0.725
2014 18.63 4.28 0.464 0.246 0.710
2015 18.48 4.25 0.461 0.244 0.705
2016 15.91 3.66 0.397 0.211 0.608

270 4. Conversion process of EFBs to bioethanol

271 Oil palm empty fruit bunches as a successful potential feedstock for the second generation
272 bioethanol production can be achieved as long as an efficient conversion processes are
273 implemented within the work [90]. Fig. 3 present the important conversion process
274 technology from EFBs to bioethanol. Bioethanol production generally consists of three
275 primary steps which are pretreatment, hydrolysis, and fermentation [91]. The process consists
276 of several different conditions and steps which are influential in the final yield of bioethanol.

277 Table 7 shows the research that had been done in producing bioethanol using EFBs.
278 The experimental methods in the pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation play an important
279 role in bioethanol production. Hence, the optimization process is studied to achieve higher
280 ethanol yield. In Cui et al. study, formiline pretreatment using formic acid and enzymatic
281 hydrolysis by Cellulase and β-glucosidase followed by simultaneous saccharification and
282 fermentation (SSF) using Saccharomyces cerevisiae CICC 31014 managed to obtain 83.6 g/l

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

283 ethanol yield [92]. Meanwhile, only 37.8 g/l ethanol yield is obtained when applying
284 sequential acid and alkali pretreatment and using only one enzyme during enzymatic
285 hydrolysis which is Cellic® CTec2 Cellulase followed by SSF using Saccharomyces
286 cerevisiae W303-1A [23]. Hence, it can be deduced that the yield of ethanol produced
287 depends on the types of pretreatment, enzymes used and fermentation parameters employed.

PRETREATMENT HYDROLYSIS FERMENTATION

EMPTY • Biological • Acid hydrolysis • Separate hydrolysis and
FRUIT fermentation (SHF) BIOETHANOL
• Chemical • Enzymatic
BUNCHES • Simultaneous
• Physical hydrolysis
(EFBS) saccharification and
• Physico-chemical fermentation (SSF)

288

289 Fig. 3. The conversion process from EFBs to Bioethanol [87,93].

16
290 Table 7
291 Ethanol production from EFBs
Pretreatment methods Hydrolysis Process Glucose yield (g/L) Fermentation Fermenting Ethanol yield (g/L) Reference
Process Microorganisms
Formiline Enzymatic hydrolysis (Cellulase and β- 71.9 SSF Saccharomyces cerevisiae 83.6 [92]
glucosidase) CICC 31014.
Sequential acid/alkali Enzymatic hydrolysis (Cellic® CTec2 70.8 SSF Saccharomyces cerevisiae 37.8 [87]
cellulase) W303-1A
Alkali (15% w/v NaOH) Acid hydrolysis (7% v/v H2SO4) 33.45 SHF Baker’s yeast & yeast from 6.23 - 8.49 (Baker’s yeast) [78]
loog-pang
0.05 to 0.21 (Loog-pang)

Dilute acid treatment Enzymatic hydrolysis Cellulase - SSF S. cerevisiae 386.61-497.07 [94]
(H2SO4) (Cellulast®1.5L) and β -glucosidase
(powder
from almonds)
Alkaline (10% NaOH) Enzymatic hydrolysis (Cellic® CTec2 and - SHF & SSF Dry yeast (Saccharomyces 402.39 (SHF) [93]
Cellic® HTec2 from Novozymes) cerevisiae)

Bisulfite pretreatment Enzymatic hydrolysis (cellulase (Sino - Q-SSF S. cerevisiae 0.325 [95]
Enzymes R) and β-glucosidase)
Alkaline (2% NaOH) Crude Cellulase cocktails from Trichoderma 8.37 SSF Baker’s yeast 0.59 [96]
asperellum UPM1 and Aspergillus
fumigatus UPM2
Acid treatment (H2SO4) Cellulase (Celluclast 1.5 L) and β- - SSF S. cerevisiae. - [97]
glucosidase
Acid treatment (H2SO4) Two stages of dilute acid hydrolysis - SSF S. cerevisiae and Mucor 355.05 (Mucor indicus) [98]
(H2SO4) indicus. 362.94 (S. cerevisiae)

292 *some of the data were not reported

293 *SHF: Separate hydrolysis and fermentation
294 * SSF: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
295 *Q-SSF: Quasi- Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

296 EFBs are a lignocellulosic biomass with a rigid cellulose structure combined with an
297 amorphous hemicelluloses and lignin cross-linked structure. Thus, EFBs are chemically
298 complex and resistant to enzymatic digestion during the hydrolysis process [87]. Hence, a
299 biological process is vital for converting the lignocelluloses to bioethanol, delignification and
300 separation of the cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin fraction present in EFBs [94].
301 Moreover, optimizing the process conditions is vital to achieve higher bioethanol yield.
302 Table 8 lists all of the optimal process factors reported so far on bioethanol production from
303 EFBs. Rahman et al. [54] conducted a study on EFBs fiber to determine the effect of acid
304 concentration, reaction time and temperature for the production of xylose. At the end of the
305 research, it was found out that the optimum reaction time, temperature and acid concentration
306 were 60 min, 119 °C, and 2% respectively.

307 Table 8
308 List of optimal process factors involved in the bioethanol production from EFBs.
Factors/ Parameters Optimum Glucose/ Ethanol yield (g/L) Reference
range of the
parameters
Substrate 10.0 – 15.0 37.8 b [10 % (w/v)] [87]
concentration, % (w/v
pretreated EFBs)
Hydrolysis process:
Acid concentration, % 1.0 – 7.0 26.89 a [6% w/v H2SO4] [99]
(v/v) 33.45 a [7% v/v H2SO4] [78]
Temperature (°C) 40.0 – 50.0 71.9 a [50°C] [92]
Time (hour) 12.0 – 120.0 70.8 a [48 h] [87]
71.9 a [120 h] [92]
pH 4.8 – 6.0 71.9 a [4.8] [92]
Agitation speed (rpm) 120.0 – 200.0 31.58 a [150 rpm] [28]
70.8 a [200 rpm] [87]
Fermentation
process:
pH 4.8 – 6.0 83.4b [4.8] [80]
Temperature (°C) 30.0 – 40.0 37.8b [30°C] [87]
Time (hour) 12.0 – 72.0 8.49 [72 hours fermentation] [100]
Agitation speed (rpm) 130.0 – 200.0 83.6 b [130 rpm] [92]
12.13b [150 rpm] [71]
309 a: glucose yield (g/l)
310 b: ethanol yield (g/l)

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

311 Based on Table 8, it is concluded that each parameter listed influenced the production
312 of bioethanol directly or indirectly. For example, in the SSF of the pretreated biomass, 37.8
313 g/L ethanol is produced after 60 h using 10% (w/v) pretreated EFBs [87]. While ethanol
314 production from EFBs using separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) resulted in 8.49 g/l
315 ethanol yield where the optimum fermentation conditions were 3 days (72 hours)
316 fermentation using 1.5 g of baker’s yeast [100].

317 4.1 Pretreatment

318 Bioconversion process technologies of EFBs to bioethanol are important in order to

319 maximize the yield of the end product. A proper pretreatment is also necessary to fully
320 breakdown the EFBs to fermentable sugars before being used in the hydrolysis and
321 fermentation [56]. This process is also conducted to degrade lignin and hemicellulose,
322 decrease cellulose crystallinity, increase surface area and the porosity of materials so that the
323 bioethanol productivity increases at the end of the process [101,102]. Pretreatment causes the
324 cellulose-rich solids more open to enzymatic attack as both lignin and hemicelluloses were
325 solubilized and removed during the washing and separation steps [103].

326 Among the conversion method, pretreatment is the most costly and complicated steps
327 as it comprises 20 to 48% of the total cost of the whole biorefining facility [104,105]. This
328 process is critical for its cost and for the impact on all the following operations performed
329 industrially as it will determine the cost-effectiveness of the overall process [84,106]. In order
330 to reduce the cost of the separation process and to utilize all the sugars available in the
331 pretreated slurry, it is desirable to ferment the whole slurry (liquid plus solid fractions
332 together) of pretreated biomass. The fermentation of the whole pretreated slurry could
333 increase the utilization of sugars in the liquid fraction and minimize the solid/liquid
334 separation cost, which then reduces the production cost of cellulosic ethanol [97].
335 Pretreatment and saccharification with high solid loading and low enzyme would also be an
336 added advantage to cut the process cost [94].

337 Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass can be divided by biological, chemical,

338 mechanical or a combination of these methods. For example, a combination of biological
339 pretreatment using white-rot fungi and chemical pretreatment using phosphoric acid for
340 ethanol production had been studied [107]. Without any pretreatment, the natural chemical
341 and physical properties of the EFBs limited the conversion of sugar from cellulose during the

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

342 enzymatic hydrolysis [108]. Table 9 shows the comparison between different pretreatment
343 methods used on EFBs.

344 Biological delignification is an alternative approach for pretreatment as it is very cost-

345 effective, low energy requirement, environmental friendly, has low formation of toxic
346 materials such as furfural and acetic acid. It is typically the most economical method since
347 the enzymes used to degrade different substances in the substrates are produced by
348 microorganisms, so no chemical waste is generated [109]. However, biological pretreatment
349 is a very slow process and some important components (hemicelluloses and cellulose) of
350 biomass may also be consumed either by the same microorganism or by some foreign
351 invaders [17].

352 Both physical and chemical pretreatment have been extensively used in research for
353 treating biomass, to enhance the accessibility of enzyme, improve the enzymatic hydrolysis
354 of cellulose and fermentable sugar production. However, both methods involve high
355 technology equipments and chemical usage which can cause a negative effect on the
356 environment [63]. Nevertheless, it is much preferred than biological pretreatment because it
357 reduces the process time and temperature which improves energy utilization. Thus,
358 bioethanol production rate can be increased in a shorter amount of time [105].

359 Chemical pretreatment using either dilute acid or alkali is the most popular type of
360 techniques used on feedstock pretreatment. According to Chiesa and Gnansounou, dilute acid
361 pretreatment worked perfectly on EFBs as it posses a better potential for ethanol production
362 compared to other investigated feedstocks [84]. While, alkaline pretreatment using NaOH is
363 proven in increasing the amount of cellulose and decreasing the lignin and hemicelluloses
364 content in the EFBs. From the study [76], the cellulose content increases from 37.26% to
365 68.86%, lignin, and hemicelluloses decreases from 31.68% and 14.62% to 11% and 5.69%
366 respectively. This happened due to the capability of alkaline pretreatment using NaOH in
367 their efficiency in lignin solubilization and cause swelling in the treated fiber structure.
368 Hence, the internal surface area of cellulose was enlarged and both the polymerization and
369 degree of crystallinity of cellulose was decreased [110]. A sequential acid-alkali pretreatment
370 strategy combining the two methods also can be applied to increase the ethanol productivity
371 in EPFBs fiber by enhancing the enzymatic digestibility and fermentability of the sugar. Both
372 methods, acid pretreatment of a lignocellulosic biomass is known to reduce the

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

373 hemicelluloses content while alkali pretreatment is used for delignification and minimize
374 sugar degradation without forming inhibitory compounds [87].

375 Besides that, combining chemical and irradiation method can decrease the lignin and
376 increase the cellulose content which is proven as in Table 5 where the composition of the
377 EFBs differ before and after the pretreatment. The OPEFBs structure also changes in term of
378 their crystallite size, morphology, and crystallinity index. This method also gave better
379 properties for hydrolysis process to produce bioethanol [81]. However, there is a drawback of
380 the chemical pretreatment as it requires expensive chemicals to carry out the research. It also
381 needs additional precautionary steps such as the use of corrosion-resistant apparatus and safe
382 disposal of chemicals used in the laboratory work [63].

383 Another pretreatment is the steam pretreatment. It is the autohydrolysis of biomass

384 with steam at high temperature and pressure which is catalyzed by the organic acid formed
385 from the biomass during the hydrolysis [91]. From the study, autohydrolysis assisted in the
386 removal of hemicelluloses and degradation of lignin, thus increasing the content of the
387 cellulose. Steam pretreatment does not require the addition of chemicals and it can be
388 operated directly after the fruit has been stripped off for oil production. Thus, EFBs can be
389 processed immediately and saccharified into sugars for ethanol production [91]. Erosion that
390 happens in OPEFBs structures after the steam explosion improves the porosity and reduce the
391 crystallinity of the cellulose [111]. However, steam pretreatment requires a high energy input
392 which might increase the cost of operation at a commercial scale [112].

393 Pretreatment is crucial as, without it, the natural physical and chemical properties of
394 the EFBs will limit the conversion of sugar from cellulose in the enzymatic hydrolysis
395 process [108]. Therefore, it is advised to carry out the research according to the best
396 pretreatment process which is suitable to the feedstock in order to obtaine higher yield of the
397 desired product.

21
398 Table 9
399 Comparison of different oil palm EFBs pretreatment methods.

Method of Advantage (s) Drawback (s) Reference (s)

pretreatment
Biological An environmentally friendly Does not alter the structural characteristics of [17,109,113]
pretreatment Cost-effective lignocellulose such as destroying the lignin
/enzymatic Low formation of toxic materials protective layer.
delignification Non-energy-intensive process because it can Glucan and xylan are not accessible to the enzyme
be performed under mild reaction conditions attack.
without using toxic chemicals. Slow process
Some components (hemicelluloses and cellulose)
of biomass can be consumed either by the same
microorganism or by some foreign invaders.
Chemical Enhancing the accessibility of enzyme. Expensive and inappropriate for environmentally- [63]
pre-treatment Improving the enzymatic hydrolysis of benign bioconversion.
cellulose and fermentable sugars production. Require additional precautionary steps such as
the use of corrosion-resistant apparatus, safe
disposal of used chemicals.
Steam pretreatment Alter the physicochemical properties of the Require a high energy input and this might [112]
EFBs. increase the cost of operation at a commercial
Enhancing the biodegradability scale.
characteristics for bioconversion process.
Alkali pretreatment Remove lignin and acetyl at high pressure Slow reaction rate. [114]
and temperature.
Reducing the cellulose crystallinity index
(CI) value.
Hydrothermal Improvement in the fuel qualities of EFBs. Liquid residue or wastewater obtained after the [79,115,116]
pretreatment The increase of the carbon content. process.
Higher energy density. Certain inorganic, organic contents and trace
Lower O/C and H/C ratios. elements in EFBs may dissolve into the liquid
Can effectively transport nutrient phase.

22
 components in biomass into a liquid product.

Ionic liquid High solvating power, excellent chemical, Expensive solvents [113]
pretreatment and thermal stability.
Sono-assisted Reduce the energy and material inputs Does not have a significant effect on the [105,117]
(Ultrasonic) Reduce process time and temperature which production of glucose.
organosolv /H2O2 improves energy utilization. Incapable of altering the cellulose matrix in
pretreatment; Ultrasonic-assisted SSF of pretreated OPFs OPEFBs.
was found to accelerate the production rate
of bioethanol at a shorter time.
Physico-chemical Enhanced the pretreatment effectiveness in Optimization needs to be done to determine the [118]
pretreatments reducing lignin content. parameters for NaOH concentrations in the
(NaOH-catalyzed Increase the surface area of biomass which soaking and steam step, temperature and time.
Steam) improved the enzymatic digestibility

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

401 4.2 Hydrolysis

402 The goal of hydrolysis and pretreatment are to maximize the conversion of the
403 polysaccharide components (xylan and glucan) to monomeric sugars (xylose and glucose) for
404 further use in the fermentation for bioethanol production [90]. Hydrolysis can either be
405 accomplished by chemical routes, using alkaline or acid catalysts or by biological routes,
406 using enzyme catalysts [19]. Many operating conditions or parameters can influence the
407 hydrolysis as in Table 10.

408 4.2.1 Acid hydrolysis

409 Chin et al. [119] suggested that applying chemical approach together with fermentation for
410 bioethanol productions seems to be a good approach. Concentrated acid has been used for
411 decrystallization of cellulose before dilute acid hydrolysis for sugar production. Separation of
412 acid from sugars, acid recovery, and acid concentrations are the critical points that need to be
413 addressed in order to reduce the chemical cost for hydrolysis [120]. Besides, a low
414 concentration of acid is much preferred as it contributes to less environmental impact.

415 4.2.2 Enzymatic hydrolysis

416 Enzymatic hydrolysis is carried out so that reduction of cellulose, a major component of
417 lignocellulose can be converted into fermentable sugars [121]. It is preferred compared to
418 acid hydrolysis due to the environmental problems posed by acids such as poor catalyst
419 recyclability and equipment corrosion [19]. In the enzymatic hydrolysis, enzyme can be used
420 to convert cellulose into sugars for higher ethanol yield in an environmental friendly
421 approach [78]. Hydrolysis can be affected by various factors such as cellulose fiber
422 crystallinity, porosity (accessible surface area) of lignocellulosic biomass, lignin and
423 hemicellulose content [101].

24
424 Table 10
425 Parameters involved in the hydrolysis process of EFBs.

Parameters Glucose Theoretical Reference

Yield yield (%)
Hydrolysis Enzymes Substrate Temperature Time Agitation pH
(g/L)
Type loading (°C) (h) Rate
(EFBs) (rpm)
(% w/v)
Enzymatic NS22146 enzymes - 50 120 150 5.5 - 76.60 [90]
(Novozymes).
Enzymatic Cellulase (5-20 FPU/g solid) 5-20 50 ± 0.5 120 130 4.8 71.90 - [92]
and β-glucosidase (0-40
CBU/g solid)
Acid 7% v/v H2SO4 - 119 1.83 - - 33.45 - [78]
hydrolysis - (110
min)
Enzymatic Cellic® CTec2 cellulase 10 42 48 200 6.0 70.80 - [87]
±0.80
Enzymatic Celluclast 1.5L (C), 5 50 24 120 4.8 - 81.84 [122]
Viscozyme L (V) and
Novozyme 188 (N)
Enzymatic Cellulase (Cellulast®1.5L) 15 50 72 150 4.8 - 60.30 [94]
and β -glucosidase (powder
from almonds)

Enzymatic Cellulase and β –glucosidase - 50 72 - 4.8 4.00 - [74]

(5:1 ratio)

Enzymatic Cellulase complex and β - - 50-52 12 - 4.8-5.5 - 67.50 [76]

glucosidase

426 *some of the data were not reported.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

427 Table 10 indicates some of the parameters involved in the hydrolysis of EFBs under
428 different conditions for bioethanol production. Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was the most common
429 hydrolyzing agent in the acid hydrolysis. Duangwang and Sangwichien [78] used EFBs as
430 their raw materials and reported a glucose yield of 33.45 g/L. They employed the acid
431 hydrolysis using 7% (v/v) H2SO4 where the experiment was conducted at 119 °C for 110
432 min.

433 Most of the recent research of producing bioethanol using EFBs as its feedstock
434 employed enzymatic hydrolysis rather than acid hydrolysis. Cellic® CTec2, Cellic® HTec2,
435 Cellulase, and β-glucosidase or combinations of these enzymes are used in enzymatic
436 hydrolysis because of their nature which can hydrolyze polysaccharides. However, most of
437 the reported research are using a combination of Cellulase and β-glucosidase [74,76,92,94].
438 Hamzah et al. [74] studied that the effect of combining cellulose and β-1-4 glucosidase was
439 better rather than using the Cellulase alone in the hydrolysis of EFBs. This is because
440 addition of β-glucosidase can prevent enzyme inhibition during the enzymatic hydrolysis.
441 The reaction was conducted at different parameters such as temperature in the range of 30-50
442 °C, hydrolysis duration of 12-120 hour, agitation of 120-200 rpm [74,76,78,87,90,92–
443 94,122].

444 4.3 Fermentation

445 Bioethanol can be produced through fermentation of any raw materials as long as it contains
446 sugar [123]. The fermentation process is the vital step for production of liquid biofuels,
447 bioethanol by fermenting the sugar using respective microorganisms or yeasts [100]. The
448 cellulose fraction of the lignocellulosic biomass can be converted to bioethanol by two
449 processes i.e., separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) or simultaneous saccharification
450 and fermentation (SSF) [124].

451 4.3.1 Separate Hydrolysis and Fermentation (SHF)

452 In the SHF process, the pretreated sample undergoes two different sequential steps in
453 hydrolysis and fermentation [48]. This allows both processes working at two different
454 optimal operating conditions. Based on literature, SHF process is rarely used in the
455 bioethanol production of EFBs as it needs more energy and process time [105].

456

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

457 4.3.2 Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF)

458 SSF is a single step combining the hydrolysis and fermentation [48]. According to Lin and
459 Tanaka [123], SSF process combined the enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation together so
460 that the concentration of glucose in the process can remain low to prevent cellulase
461 inhibition. SSF is a better alternative process compared to SHF in terms of cost; as it has only
462 a single step, low potential costs due to lower energy requirement, reduced process time and
463 high ethanol yield. Therefore, production of biofuel will be more economical [125]. High
464 bioethanol yield at high solid loading also obtained from SSF [105]. It also results in higher
465 yield of ethanol compared to SHF by minimizing the product inhibition. The process time for
466 producing ethanol for SSF is shorter than SHF due to the combined effect of hydrolysis and
467 fermentation at the same time [93]. Table 11 shows the comparison between the SHF and
468 SSF processes.

469 However, SSF suffers from a drawback, in which fermenting microorganisms and
470 enzymes have different optimum temperature for their rate of reaction. A large number of
471 reported reseach stated that the optimum temperature for enzymatic hydrolysis is at 40-50 ˚C,
472 but microorganisms with good ethanol yield and productivity do not usually tolerate this high
473 temperature [101]. Hence, a thermotolerant microorganism or mixed culture of some
474 microorganisms and a hydrolysis step should be added to tackle this problem [101].

475 Table 11
476 Comparison between SHF and SSF process [93,101,105].
Characteristic SHF SSF
Cost High Low
Energy requirement High Low
Process time Longer Shorter
Solid loading Low High
Product inhibition Maximum Minimum
Ethanol Yield Low High
477

478 Table 12 shows some of the parameters involved in the fermentation process of
479 EFBs. According to the table, it can be seen that most of the studies use the SSF between the
480 two types of fermentation. Duangwang and Sangwichien [78] studied the bioethanol
481 production by using EFBs as their feedstocks reported a bioethanol yield of 8.49 g/L via
27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

482 separate hydrolysis and fermentation. The fermentation was conducted at 30 °C, 150 rpm and
483 120 h. The research indicated that the optimum fermentation condition was for 3 days using
484 1.5 g of baker’s yeast. Loog-pang and Baker’s yeast was used as the fermenting
485 microorganisms in the process, where higher bioethanol yield is produced from Baker’s yeast
486 (6.23- 8.49 g/L) than using Loog-pang (0.05 to 0.21 g/L). In the studies by Cui et al. [92] the
487 SSF results showed that the pretreated EFBs have an excellent fermentability. The research
488 was conducted between 37-38 °C at 130 rpm on orbital shaker using Saccharomyces
489 cerevisiae CICC 31014 as the fermenting microorganisms. Results showed that the
490 bioethanol concentration reached 83.6 g/L with an approximate of 85% of the theoretical
491 yield.

492 Saccharomyces cerevisiae, commonly known as the predominant microorganisms are

493 used in large-scale processes due to the high productivities and ethanol yields that can be
494 achieved [126]. Based on Table 12, S. cerevisiae is the most common microorganisms used
495 in fermentation. It can generate and produce higher yield of ethanol with more than 80% of
496 the theoretical yield [80,92]. The highest theoretical yield of bioethanol production was
497 achieved by Adela et al. [71] which is 89.1 %. The research was conducted at 30 °C, 150
498 rpm, and 72 h by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as the fermenting microorganism which
499 then produced a yield of 12.13 ± 0.99 g/L bioethanol within 24 h. In this study, it was
500 concluded that a combined chemical pretreatment of EFBs influence the production of
501 bioethanol as its pretreatment process removed the hemicellulose and lignin that resulted in
502 yielding high cellulose.

28
503 Table 12
504 Parameters involved in the fermentation process of EFBs.

Parameters Ethanol Theoretical Reference

Fermentation Fermenting Temperature Time (h) Agitation pH yield (g/L) yield (%)
type (s) Microorganism (s) (°C) Rate (rpm)
SSF Saccharomyces 37-38 - 130 - 83.60 85 [92]
cerevisiae CICC
31014
SHF & SSF Dry yeast 32 72 150 4.8 - 4.74 (SHF) [93]
(Saccharomyces 6.05 (SSF)
cereviceae)
SHF Baker’s yeast & yeast 30 120 150 6.23- 8.49 - [78]
from loog-pang (Baker’s
yeast); 0.05
to 0.21
(Loog-pang)
SSF Saccharomyces 32 72 150 4.8 83.40 80.21 [80]
cerevisiae
SSF Saccharomyces 30 24 200 - 37.80 - [87]
cerevisiae W303-1A
SSF Saccharomyces 30 72 150 4.0 12.13 ± 0.99 89.1 [71]
cerevisiae ATCC
24860
SSF S. cereviceae 30 48 130 4.8 - 48-71 [94]
(5g/l)
SSF Saccharomyces 32 48 - 5-6 - 6.36 [76]
cerevisiae Mk
505 *some of the data were not reported
506 *SHF: Separate hydrolysis and fermentation
507 *SSF: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

508 5. Challenges, Economic and Future Prospects of Bioethanol in Malaysia

509 In the past few decades, many research and development have been done to utilize a large
510 amount of available biomass generated from the industry as it offers a big potential for large-
511 scale power generation that can benefit the global environmental concerns related to waste
512 disposal methods and also shape the country economy [127]. Empty fruit bunches has been
513 proposed as a new feedstock due to increasing attention in producing a second generation
514 bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. However, the critical part which can influence the
515 economy is the amount of bioethanol yield gain from the process. This is because the cost of
516 the feedstock is an important role in making the production economically feasible. [78].
517 Even though plenty of research had been done on the production of bioethanol from biomass,
518 less are using EFBs as their main feedstock in Malaysia, this is because the industry still
519 faces various challenges such as low product yield, high production, and recovery cost
520 [128].

521 A major challenge in utilizing EFBs as feedstock is largely due to the difficulty in
522 releasing sugars through the pretreatment process. According to Tye et al. [108] without any
523 pretreatment, the natural chemical and physical properties of EFBs limit the conversion
524 process of sugar from cellulose in the hydrolysis. Hence, continuous efforts are done to
525 improve the production of bioethanol from EFBs via proper pretreatment, hydrolysis, and
526 fermentation. Regardless of the chosen processes, the end product of higher yields of ethanol
527 are necessary for an economically viable large process [124]. Furthermore, parameters such
528 as substrate loading and minimizing the concentration of enzymes in the fermentation
529 process (SSF) is also one of the challenges in producing ethanol economically [129].

530 Biomass is one of the abundant renewable sources of energy that can be found in
531 Malaysia [11]. In terms of economic development, this is valuable for developing the
532 economy in the country as energy can be produced by using biomass waste generated from
533 the oil palm industry [130]. This is further supported by Shafie et al. [11] which stated that an
534 abundant supply of energy can influence the growth of the economy in Malaysia. More
535 resources are needed in order to support the industrial development with the current
536 economic development to enhance the productivity of labour and capital of energy
537 production. The domestic palm oil production in Malaysia is projected to increase up to 50%
538 to 26.6 million tonnes in 2035 [131]. Thus, biomass waste from palm oil industry will
539 increase along the way which is beneficial as it can be converted to a new renewable energy

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

540 which is liquid biofuel, bioethanol. Malaysia’s vision to become a high-income country also
541 can be achieved if there is a supply of new renewable and sustainable energy for the future
542 [132].

543 Future prospect regarding of biomass utilization as an energy resource is dependent

544 totally on the cost of producing energy from biomass compared to fossil fuels and awareness
545 of environmental impacts caused by fossil fuels [2]. Bioethanol from a cellulosic biomass
546 resource is broadly recognized as a distinctive sustainable liquid transportation fuel with
547 powerful economic, strategic aspects and environmental friendly. However, for these
548 advantages to be realized the production costs must be competitive [133]. According to
549 Gnansounou and Dauriat [73], the key factors that affected the techno-economic feasibility in
550 lignocellulosic bioethanol production are the feedstock cost, plant capacity, product yield and
551 the process configuration. In Malaysia, biomass waste can be considered as a sustainable
552 replacement for fossil fuels where about 76% of lands are covered by agricultural fields and
553 dense tropical forests [2]. While corn, starch, and sugarcane are the main sources of feedstock
554 for bioethanol production in the USA and Brazil, oil palm is the main biomass waste present
555 in Malaysia [43]. Hence, production of bioethanol can be more economically feasible in
556 Malaysia since “a waste can be generated into a value-added product or wealth”.

557 6. Status of Commercial Production of Bioethanol in Malaysia

558 Based on literature, bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass can be

559 commercialized in near future. Commercialization is important to expose the public to the
560 potential of cellulosic ethanol as a transportation fuel [134]. Cellulosic biomass is a
561 promising feedstock due to its low cost and high availability. However, at present, production
562 of bioethanol from these biomass materials at a large scale has still not been implemented
563 [135].

564 Recently, bioethanol made up from lignocellulosic biomass has just been recognized
565 widely as a new and unique transportation fuel [134]. Commercialization process is
566 influenced by the production costs of the conversion technology [136]. In order for the
567 commercial production of bioethanol to be developed, the conversion technology must be
568 efficient to gain higher bioethanol yield as well as produced high value-added products.
569 Brazil and United States of America is an example of two leading fuel ethanol producer that
570 produced ethanol from sugarcane juice and corn grain materials [137,138]. In order to

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

571 develop the commercial production of bioethanol in Malaysia, the process economics of
572 cellulosic ethanol production must be improved [138].

573 7. Conclusion

574 Oil palm empty fruit bunches are one of the popular bioresources for lignocellulosic biomass
575 wastes as Malaysia is the second largest oil palm producing country in the world. It is
576 recognized as the biggest alternative and potential feedstock sources for bioethanol
577 production to supply energy. In this review, the potential, status, and aspects of oil palm
578 empty fruit bunches as a promising feedstock for bioethanol production in Malaysia are
579 discussed and presented with its significant conversion technology processes. Many studies
580 have proven the suitability of EFBs as feedstock to produce higher bioethanol yield with the
581 right conversion process employed in the research. Thus, EFBs conversion processes to
582 bioethanol by using pretreatment, hydrolysis, and fermentation are evaluated in this review.
583 A wide range of operating conditions or parameters which can influence the hydrolysis and
584 fermentation is also studied. Further research on optimization of the conversion process is
585 required to create an advanced and efficient technology to maximize the bioethanol
586 production process from EFBs. Bioethanol generation exploiting the EFBs can reduce its
587 production cost as EFBs are an inexpensive biomass waste available in Malaysia. Thus,
588 bioethanol can be easily commercialized as the product cost only depends on the technology
589 involved in the production which promotes a sustainable economic development. Economic
590 growth, crisis, and security in Malaysia, therefore, can be strengthened as economically
591 sustainable fuels produced can lower the dependency on imported fuels in Malaysia. It is
592 expected that the production of bioethanol from EFBs might be the important solution for
593 finding a suitable substitution for fossil fuels as energy resources.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

594 References:

595 [1] H. Long, X. Li, H. Wang, J. Jia, Biomass resources and their bioenergy potential
596 estimation: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26 (2013) 344–352.
597 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.035.
598 [2] S. Mekhilef, R. Saidur, A. Safari, W.E.S.B. Mustaffa, Biomass energy in Malaysia:
599 Current state and prospects, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 3360–3370.
600 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.04.016.
601 [3] G. Izmirlioglu, A. Demirci, Improved simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
602 of bioethanol from industrial potato waste with co-cultures of Aspergillus niger and
603 Saccharomyces cerevisiae by medium optimization, Fuel. 185 (2016) 684–691.
604 doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.08.035.
605 [4] A.A. Bazmi, G. Zahedi, H. Hashim, Progress and challenges in utilization of palm oil
606 biomass as fuel for decentralized electricity generation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
607 15 (2011) 574–583. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.09.031.
608 [5] S.V. Ranganathan, S.L. Narasimhan, K. Muthukumar, An overview of enzymatic
609 production of biodiesel, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 3975–3981.
610 doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.04.060.
611 [6] A. Elliston, S.R.A. Collins, D.R. Wilson, I.N. Roberts, K.W. Waldron, High
612 concentrations of cellulosic ethanol achieved by fed batch semi simultaneous
613 saccharification and fermentation of waste-paper, Bioresour. Technol. 134 (2013) 117–
614 126. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.01.084.
615 [7] E.I. Wiloso, R. Heijungs, G.R. De Snoo, LCA of second generation bioethanol: A
616 review and some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice, Renew. Sustain. Energy
617 Rev. 16 (2012) 5295–5308. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.04.035.
618 [8] F. Alam, S. Mobin, H. Chowdhury, Third generation biofuel from Algae, Procedia
619 Eng. 105 (2015) 763–768. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.05.068.
620 [9] T. Srimachai, K. Nuithitikul, S. O-Thong, P. Kongjan, K. Panpong, Optimization and
621 Kinetic Modeling of Ethanol Production from Oil Palm Frond Juice in Batch
622 Fermentation, Elsevier B.V., 2015. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.490.
623 [10] K.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, A.R. Mohamed, Role of energy policy in renewable energy
624 accomplishment: The case of second-generation bioethanol, Energy Policy. 36 (2008)
625 3360–3365. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.05.016.
626 [11] S.M. Shafie, T.M.I. Mahlia, H.H. Masjuki, A. Andriyana, Current energy usage and

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

627 sustainable energy in Malaysia: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011)
628 4370–4377. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.07.113.
629 [12] A.S. Bujang, C.J. Bern, T.J. Brumm, Summary of energy demand and renewable
630 energy policies in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53 (2016) 1459–1467.
631 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.09.047.
632 [13] S. Sumathi, S.P. Chai, A.R.Ã. Mohamed, Utilization of oil palm as a source of
633 renewable energy in Malaysia, 12 (2008) 2404–2421. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.06.006.
634 [14] F. Sulaiman, N. Abdullah, H. Gerhauser, A. Shariff, An outlook of Malaysian energy,
635 oil palm industry and its utilization of wastes as useful resources, Biomass and
636 Bioenergy. 35 (2011) 3775–3786. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.06.018.
637 [15] H. Hashim, W.S. Ho, Renewable energy policies and initiatives for a sustainable
638 energy future in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 4780–4787.
639 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.07.073.
640 [16] S.H. Shuit, K.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, A.H. Kamaruddin, Oil palm biomass as a sustainable
641 energy source: A Malaysian case study, Energy. 34 (2009) 1225–1235.
642 doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.05.008.
643 [17] N. Narayanaswamy, P. Dheeran, S. Verma, S. Kumar, Biological Pretreatment of
644 Lignocellulosic Biomass for Enzyme Saccharification, Edited by Zhen, F. Pretreatment
645 Techniques for Biofuels and Biorefineries; Green Energy and Technology. Springer,
646 2013.
647 [18] H.B. Aditiya, W.T. Chong, T.M.I. Mahlia, A.H. Sebayang, M.A. Berawi, H. Nur,
648 Second generation bioethanol potential from selected Malaysia’s biodiversity
649 biomasses: A review, Waste Manag. 47 (2016) 46–61.
650 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.07.031.
651 [19] J.M. Prado, D. Lachos-perez, T. Forster-carneiro, M.A. Rostagno, Food and
652 Bioproducts Processing Sub- and supercritical water hydrolysis of agricultural and
653 food industry residues for the production of fermentable sugars : A review, Food
654 Bioprod. Process. 98 (2015) 95–123. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.004.
655 [20] P. Saha, A.C. Baishnab, F. Alam, M.R. Khan, A. Islam, Production of bio-fuel ( bio-
656 ethanol ) from biomass ( pteris ) by fermentation process with yeast, Procedia Eng. 90
657 (2014) 504–509. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.764.
658 [21] Y.Y. Liong, R. Halis, O.M. Lai, R. Mohamed, Conversion Of Lignocellulosic Biomass
659 From Grass To Bioethanol Using Materials Pretreated With Alkali And The White Rot
660 Fungus, Phanerochaete Chrysosporium, Bioresources. 7 (2012) 5500–5513.
34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

661 [22] I.S. Tan, K.T. Lee, Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of seaweed solid wastes for
662 bioethanol production: An optimization study, Energy. 78 (2014) 53–62.
663 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.04.080.
664 [23] S. Kim, J.M. Park, J.W. Seo, C.H. Kim, Sequential acid-/alkali-pretreatment of empty
665 palm fruit bunch fiber, Bioresour. Technol. 109 (2012) 229–233.
666 doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.01.036.
667 [24] M.N. Bin Hossain, J.K. Basu, M. Mamun, The Production of Ethanol from Micro-
668 Algae Spirulina, Procedia Eng. 105 (2015) 733–738.
669 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.05.064.
670 [25] M.N.N. Shahirah, J. Gimbun, S.F. Pang, R.M. Zakria, C.K. Cheng, G.K. Chua, M.F.F.
671 Asras, Influence of nutrient addition on the bioethanol yield from oil palm trunk sap
672 fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 23 (2015) 213–217.
673 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.08.018.
674 [26] M. Jusuf, E. Ginting, The prospects and challenges of sweet potato as bio-ethanol
675 source in Indonesia, Energy Procedia. 47 (2014) 173–179.
676 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.01.211.
677 [27] N.K.N. Al-Shorgani, H. Shukor, P. Abdeshahian, M.Y. Mohd Nazir, M.S. Kalil, A.A.
678 Hamid, W.M. Wan Yusoff, Process optimization of butanol production by Clostridium
679 saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1-4 (ATCC 13564) using palm oil mill effluent in
680 acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation, Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 4 (2015) 244–249.
681 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.02.004.
682 [28] M.F. Ibrahim, S. Abd-Aziz, M.E.M. Yusoff, L.Y. Phang, M.A. Hassan, Simultaneous
683 enzymatic saccharification and ABE fermentation using pretreated oil palm empty fruit
684 bunch as substrate to produce butanol and hydrogen as biofuel, Renew. Energy. 77
685 (2015) 447–455. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.12.047.
686 [29] H. Shukor, P. Abdeshahian, N.K.N. Al-Shorgani, A.A. Hamid, N.A. Rahman, M.S.
687 Kalil, Saccharification of polysaccharide content of palm kernel cake using enzymatic
688 catalysis for production of biobutanol in acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation,
689 Bioresour. Technol. 202 (2016) 206–213. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.078.
690 [30] N.A. Sasongko, R. Noguchi, Comprehensive evaluation of integrated energy plantation
691 model of palm oil and microalgae based biofuel for sustainable energy production,
692 Energy Procedia. 68 (2015) 226–235. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.251.
693 [31] P.M. Abdul, J. Md. Jahim, S. Harun, M. Markom, O. Hassan, A.W. Mohammad, A.J.
694 Asis, Biohydrogen production from pentose-rich oil palm empty fruit bunch molasses:
35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

695 A first trial, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 38 (2013) 15693–15699.

696 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.050.
697 [32] A. Inayat, M.M. Ahmad, M.I.A. Mutalib, S. Yusup, Process modeling for parametric
698 study on oil palm empty fruit bunch steam gasification for hydrogen production, Fuel
699 Process. Technol. 93 (2012) 26–34. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.08.014.
700 [33] S. Sivasangar, Z. Zainal, A. Salmiaton, Y.H. Taufiq-Yap, Supercritical water
701 gasification of empty fruit bunches from oil palm for hydrogen production, Fuel. 143
702 (2015) 563–569. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.073.
703 [34] N. Abdullah, H. Gerhauser, Bio-oil derived from empty fruit bunches, Fuel. 87 (2008)
704 2606–2613. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.02.011.
705 [35] M.A. Sukiran, S.K. Loh, N.A. Bakar, Y.M. Choo, Production and Characterization of
706 Bio-Char from the Pyrolysis of Empty Fruit Bunches, Am. J. Appl. Sci. 8 (2011) 984–
707 988.
708 [36] N. Mohammad, M.Z. Alam, N.A. Kabbashi, A. Ahsan, Effective composting of oil
709 palm industrial waste by filamentous fungi: A review, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 58
710 (2012) 69–78. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.10.009.
711 [37] H.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, A.R. Mohamed, Second-generation bio-ethanol (SGB) from
712 Malaysian palm empty fruit bunch: Energy and exergy analyses, Bioresour. Technol.
713 101 (2010) 5719–5727. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.02.023.
714 [38] Y.Y. Tye, K.T. Lee, W.N. Wan Abdullah, C.P. Leh, Second-generation bioethanol as a
715 sustainable energy source in Malaysia transportation sector: Status, potential and
716 future prospects, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 4521–4536.
717 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.07.099.
718 [39] S.A. Jambo, R. Abdulla, S.H. Azhar, H. Marbawi, J.A. Gansau, P. Ravindra, A review
719 on third generation bioethanol feedstock, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 65 (2016) 756–
720 769. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.07.064.
721 [40] C.S. Goh, K.T. Lee, A visionary and conceptual macroalgae-based third-generation
722 bioethanol (TGB) biorefinery in Sabah, Malaysia as an underlay for renewable and
723 sustainable development, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 842–848.
724 doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.10.001.
725 [41] M.L.N.M. Carneiro, F. Pradelle, S.L. Braga, M.S.P. Gomes, A.R.F.A. Martins, F.
726 Turkovics, R.N.C. Pradelle, Potential of biofuels from algae: Comparison with fossil
727 fuels, ethanol and biodiesel in Europe and Brazil through life cycle assessment (LCA),
728 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73 (2017) 632–653. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.01.152.
36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

729 [42] E. Sasikumar, T. Viruthagiri, Optimization of Process Conditions Using Response

730 Surface Methodology ( RSM ) for Ethanol Production from Pretreated Sugarcane
731 Bagasse : Kinetics and Modeling, Bioenergy Resour. 1 (2008) 239–247.
732 doi:10.1007/s12155-008-9018-6.
733 [43] A. Limayem, S.C. Ricke, Lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: Current
734 perspectives, potential issues and future prospects, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38
735 (2012) 449–467. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.03.002.
736 [44] M.R. Swain, J. Mishra, H. Thatoi, Bioethanol Production from Sweet Potato (Ipomoea
737 batatas L.) Flour using Co-Culture of Trichoderma sp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae
738 in Solid-State Fermentation, Brazilian Arch. Biol. Technol. 56 (2013) 171–179.
739 doi:10.1590/S1516-89132013000200002.
740 [45] M.D.M. Samsudin, M. Mat Don, Assessment of bioethanol yield by S. cerevisiae
741 grown on oil palm residues: Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis,
742 Bioresour. Technol. 175 (2015) 417–423. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.10.116.
743 [46] C. Moukamnerd, H. Kawahara, Y. Katakura, Feasibility Study of Ethanol Production
744 from Food Wastes by Consolidated Continuous Solid-State Fermentation, J. Sustain.
745 Bioenergy Syst. 03 (2013) 143–148. doi:10.4236/jsbs.2013.32020.
746 [47] A. Adekunle, V. Orsat, V. Raghavan, Lignocellulosic bioethanol: A review and design
747 conceptualization study of production from cassava peels, Renew. Sustain. Energy
748 Rev. 64 (2016) 518–530. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.06.064.
749 [48] M. a Abo-state, A.M.E. Ragab, N.S. El-gendy, L. a Farahat, Bioethanol Production
750 from Rice Straw Enzymatically Saccharified by Fungal Isolates , Trichoderma viride
751 F94 and Aspergillus terreus F98, Sci. Res. 3 (2014) 19–29.
752 doi:10.4236/soft.2014.32003.
753 [49] C.S. Goh, K.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, S. Bhatia, Bio-ethanol from lignocellulose: Status,
754 perspectives and challenges in Malaysia, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 4834–4841.
755 doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.08.080.
756 [50] M. Umar, P. Jennings, T. Urmee, Strengthening the palm oil biomass Renewable
757 Energy industry in Malaysia, Renew. Energy. 60 (2013) 107–115.
758 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.04.010.
759 [51] M.F. Hossain, M. Hasanuzzman, N.A. Rahim, Bio-ethanol as an alternative fuel from
760 palm empty fruit bunches and environmental benefits, 3rd IET Int. Conf. Clean Energy
761 Technol. 2014. (2014) 1–4.
762 [52] E. Sklavounos, M. Iakovlev, S. Survase, T. Granström, A. van Heiningen, Oil palm
37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

763 empty fruit bunch to biofuels and chemicals via SO2-ethanol-water fractionation and
764 ABE fermentation, Bioresour. Technol. 147 (2013) 102–109.
765 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.08.014.
766 [53] R.R. Singhania, R.K. Sukumaran, A.K. Patel, C. Larroche, A. Pandey, Advancement
767 and comparative profiles in the production technologies using solid-state and
768 submerged fermentation for microbial cellulases, Enzyme Microb. Technol. 46 (2010)
769 541–549. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.03.010.
770 [54] S.H.A. Rahman, J.P. Choudhury, A.L. Ahmad, A.H. Kamaruddin, Optimization
771 studies on acid hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber for production of xylose,
772 Bioresour. Technol. 98 (2007) 554–559. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.02.016.
773 [55] V. Ashokkumar, M. Razman, Z. Salam, P. Sivakumar, C. Tung, S. Elumalai, V.
774 Suresh, F. Nasir, Production of liquid biofuels ( biodiesel and bioethanol ) from brown
775 marine macroalgae Padina tetrastromatica, Energy Convers. Manag. 135 (2017) 351–
776 361. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.12.054.
777 [56] L.M. Chng, D.J.C. Chan, K.T. Lee, Sustainable production of bioethanol using lipid-
778 extracted biomass from Scenedesmus dimorphus, J. Clean. Prod. 130 (2016) 68–73.
779 doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.02.016.
780 [57] M.F. Awalludin, O. Sulaiman, R. Hashim, W.N.A.W. Nadhari, An overview of the oil
781 palm industry in Malaysia and its waste utilization through thermochemical
782 conversion, specifically via liquefaction, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015)
783 1469–1484. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.05.085.
784 [58] W.P.Q. Ng, H.L. Lam, F.Y. Ng, M. Kamal, J.H.E. Lim, Waste-to-wealth: Green
785 potential from palm biomass in Malaysia, J. Clean. Prod. 34 (2012) 57–65.
786 doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.04.004.
787 [59] E.& I.D.D. Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Malaysia Oil Palm Planted Area [Internet],
788 Malaysian Palm Oil Board. (2017).
789 [Link] (accessed
790 September 13, 2017).
791 [60] E.& I.D.D. Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Malaysia palm oil yield 2017 [Internet],
792 Malaysian Palm Oil Board. (2017).
793 [Link]
794 [Link] (accessed September 21, 2017).
795 [61] Malaysian Palm Oil Board [Internet]., Oil palm planted area in Malaysia in 2015.,
796 (2015).
38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

797 [62] F. Mushtaq, T.A.T. Abdullah, R. Mat, F.N. Ani, Optimization and characterization of
798 bio-oil produced by microwave assisted pyrolysis of oil palm shell waste biomass with
799 microwave absorber, Bioresour. Technol. 190 (2015) 442–450.
800 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.02.055.
801 [63] Z. Zanirun, E.K. Bahrin, P. Lai-Yee, M.A. Hassan, S. Abd-Aziz, Enhancement of
802 fermentable sugars production from oil palm empty fruit bunch by ligninolytic
803 enzymes mediator system, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 105 (2015) 13–20.
804 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.08.010.
805 [64] Malaysian Palm Oil Board [Internet]., Statistics. Yield: Economics and Industry
806 Development Division., (2016).
807 [65] Malaysian Palm Oil Board [Internet]:, Statistics. Yield: Economics and Industry
808 Development Division. Overview of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry., (2015).
809 [66] Ravindra P, Sarbatly RH, Advances in Biofuels, Springer Science and Business Media,
810 New York, 2013.
811 [67] S.H. Chang, An overview of empty fruit bunch from oil palm as feedstock for bio-oil
812 production, Biomass and Bioenergy. 62 (2014) 174–181.
813 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.01.002.
814 [68] T.L. Kelly-yong, K.T.L. Ã, A.R. Mohamed, S. Bhatia, Potential of hydrogen from oil
815 palm biomass as a source of renewable energy worldwide, 35 (2007) 5692–5701.
816 doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.06.017.
817 [69] MPOB, MPOB. Economic and Industry Development Division (Yield). Malaysian
818 Palm Oil Board., (2017).
819 [70] T. Pradeepkumar, K. Suma Jyothibhaskar, K.N. Satheesan, Management of
820 Horticultural Crops, New India Publishing Science, New Delhi, 2008.
821 [71] N. Adela, Bioethanol Production by Fermentation of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches
822 Pretreated with Combined Chemicals, J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 4 (2014) 234–242.
823 [72] J.H. Lee, J.H. Lee, D.K. Kim, C.H. Park, J.H. Yu, E.Y. Lee, Crude glycerol-mediated
824 liquefaction of empty fruit bunches saccharification residues for preparation of
825 biopolyurethane, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 34 (2016) 157–164.
826 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.007.
827 [73] E. Gnansounou, A. Dauriat, Bioresource Technology Techno-economic analysis of
828 lignocellulosic ethanol : A review, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 4980–4991.
829 doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.02.009.
830 [74] F. Hamzah, A. Idris, T.K. Shuan, Preliminary study on enzymatic hydrolysis of treated
39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

831 oil palm ( Elaeis ) empty fruit bunches fibre ( EFB ) by using combination of cellulase
832 and b 1-4 glucosidase, Biomass and Bioenergy. 35 (2010) 1055–1059.
833 doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.11.020.
834 [75] D. Piarpuzán, J.A. Quintero, C.A. Cardona, Empty fruit bunches from oil palm as a
835 potential raw material for fuel ethanol production, Biomass and Bioenergy. 35 (2011)
836 1130–1137. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.11.038.
837 [76] Y. Sudiyani, D. Styarini, E. Triwahyuni, Sudiyarmanto, K.C. Sembiring, Y.
838 Aristiawan, H. Abimanyu, M.H. Han, Utilization of biomass waste empty fruit bunch
839 fiber of palm oil for bioethanol production using pilot - Scale unit, Energy Procedia. 32
840 (2013) 31–38. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.005.
841 [77] C.A. Cardona, O.J. Sanchez, L.F. Gutierrez, Process Synthesis for Fuel Production,
842 CRC Press, United States of America, 2009.
843 [78] S. Duangwang, C. Sangwichien, Utilization of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch
844 Hydrolysate for Ethanol Production by Baker’s Yeast and Loog-Pang, Elsevier B.V.,
845 2015. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.455.
846 [79] S. Aisyah MS, Y. Uemura, S. Yusup, The Effect of Alkaline Addition in Hydrothermal
847 Pretreatment of Empty Fruit Bunches on Enzymatic Hydrolysis Efficiencies, Procedia
848 Chem. 9 (2014) 151–157. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.05.018.
849 [80] E. Triwahyuni, S. Hariyanti, D. Dahnum, M. Nurdin, H. Abimanyu, Optimization of
850 Saccharification and Fermentation Process in Bioethanol Production from Oil Palm
851 Fronds, Procedia Chem. 16 (2015) 141–148. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.12.002.
852 [81] A. Kristiani, N. Effendi, Y. Aristiawan, F. Aulia, Y. Sudiyani, Effect of combining
853 chemical and irradiation pretreatment process to characteristic of oil palm’s empty
854 fruit bunches as raw material for second generation bioethanol, Energy Procedia. 68
855 (2015) 195–204. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.248.
856 [82] J. Yang, J.E. Kim, H.E. Kim, J.H. Yu, Y.L. Cha, K.H. Kim, Enhanced enzymatic
857 hydrolysis of hydrothermally pretreated empty fruit bunches at high solids loadings by
858 the synergism of hemicellulase and polyethylene glycol, Process Biochem. 58 (2017)
859 211–216. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.04.019.
860 [83] Y.E.C. Sugiharto, A. Harimawan, M.T.A.P. Kresnowati, R. Purwadi, R. Mariyana,
861 Andry, H.N. Fitriana, H.F. Hosen, Enzyme feeding strategies for better fed-batch
862 enzymatic hydrolysis of empty fruit bunch, Bioresour. Technol. 207 (2016) 175–179.
863 doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.01.113.
864 [84] S. Chiesa, E. Gnansounou, Use of empty fruit bunches from the oil palm for bioethanol
40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

865 production: A thorough comparison between dilute acid and dilute alkali pretreatment,
866 Bioresour. Technol. 159 (2014) 355–364. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.02.122.
867 [85] J. Cheng, S.Y. Leu, J.Y. Zhu, T.W. Jeffries, Ethanol production from non-detoxified
868 whole slurry of sulfite-pretreated empty fruit bunches at a low cellulase loading,
869 Bioresour. Technol. 164 (2014) 331–337. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.04.102.
870 [86] T.X. Do, Y. Lim, S. Jang, H. Chung, Hierarchical economic potential approach for
871 techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol production from palm empty fruit bunches,
872 Bioresour. Technol. 189 (2015) 224–235. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.04.020.
873 [87] S. Kim, C.H. Kim, Bioethanol production using the sequential acid/alkali-pretreated
874 empty palm fruit bunch fiber, Renew. Energy. 54 (2013) 150–155.
875 doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.08.032.
876 [88] S. Lim, K.T. Lee, Implementation of biofuels in Malaysian transportation sector
877 towards sustainable development: A case study of international cooperation between
878 Malaysia and Japan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 1790–1800.
879 doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.01.010.
880 [89] A. Demirbas, Bioethanol from Cellulosic materials: A renewable motor fuel from
881 Biomass, Energy Sources Part A. 27 (2005) 327–337.
882 [90] R.J. Bouza, Z. Gu, J.H. Evans, Screening conditions for acid pretreatment and
883 enzymatic hydrolysis of empty fruit bunches, Ind. Crops Prod. 84 (2016) 67–71.
884 doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.01.041.
885 [91] S. Shamsudin, U.K. Md Shah, H. Zainudin, S. Abd-Aziz, S.M. Mustapa Kamal, Y.
886 Shirai, M.A. Hassan, Effect of steam pretreatment on oil palm empty fruit bunch for
887 the production of sugars, Biomass and Bioenergy. 36 (2012) 280–288.
888 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.10.040.
889 [92] X. Cui, X. Zhao, J. Zeng, S.K. Loh, Y.M. Choo, D. Liu, Robust enzymatic hydrolysis
890 of Formiline-pretreated oil palm empty fruit bunches (EFB) for efficient conversion of
891 polysaccharide to sugars and ethanol, Bioresour. Technol. 166 (2014) 584–591.
892 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.05.102.
893 [93] D. Dahnum, S.O. Tasum, E. Triwahyuni, M. Nurdin, H. Abimanyu, Comparison of
894 SHF and SSF processes using enzyme and dry yeast for optimization of bioethanol
895 production from empty fruit bunch, Energy Procedia. 68 (2015) 107–116.
896 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.238.
897 [94] J.K. Raman, E. Gnansounou, Ethanol and lignin production from Brazilian empty fruit
898 bunch biomass, Bioresour. Technol. 172 (2014) 241–248.
41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

899 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.09.043.
900 [95] L. Tan, Y. Yu, X. Li, J. Zhao, Y. Qu, Y.M. Choo, S.K. Loh, Pretreatment of empty
901 fruit bunch from oil palm for fuel ethanol production and proposed biorefinery
902 process, Bioresour. Technol. 135 (2013) 275–282. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.10.134.
903 [96] N.K. Abu Bakar, Z. Zanirun, S. Abd-Aziz, F.M. Ghazali, M.A. Hassan, Production of
904 fermentable sugars from oil palm empty fruit bunch using crude cellulase cocktails
905 with trichoderma asperellum UPM1 and aspergillus fumigatus UPM2 for bioethanol
906 production, BioResources. 7 (2012) 3627–3639.
907 [97] Y.H. Jung, I.J. Kim, H.K. Kim, K.H. Kim, Dilute acid pretreatment of lignocellulose
908 for whole slurry ethanol fermentation, Bioresour. Technol. 132 (2013) 109–114.
909 doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.12.151.
910 [98] M. Ria, W. Rachma, T.E. Titik, C.M. Nur, N. Claes, Ethanol from Oil Palm Empty
911 Fruit Bunch via DiluteAcid Hydrolysis and Fermentation by Mucor indicus and
912 Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Agric. J. 6 (2011) 54–59. doi:10.3923/aj.2011.54.59.
913 [99] P.S. Chong, J.M. Jahim, S. Harun, S.S. Lim, S.A. Mutalib, O. Hassan, M.T.M. Nor,
914 Enhancement of batch biohydrogen production from prehydrolysate of acid treated oil
915 palm empty fruit bunch, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 38 (2013) 9592–9599.
916 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.01.154.
917 [100] C. Sangwichien, S. Duangwang, Fermentation of oil palm empty fruit bunch
918 hydrolysate to ethanol by baker’s yeast and loog-pang, Sixth PSU-UNS Int. Conf. Eng.
919 Technbology. (2013) 1–3.
920 [101] K. Karimi, G. Emtiazi, M.J. Taherzadeh, Ethanol production from dilute-acid
921 pretreated rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with Mucor
922 indicus, Rhizopus oryzae, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Enzyme Microb. Technol.
923 40 (2006) 138–144. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.10.046.
924 [102] H. Jeon, K.E. Kang, J.S. Jeong, G. Gong, J.W. Choi, H. Abimanyu, B.S. Ahn, D.J.
925 Suh, G.W. Choi, Production of anhydrous ethanol using oil palm empty fruit bunch in
926 a pilot plant, Biomass and Bioenergy. 67 (2014) 99–107.
927 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.04.022.
928 [103] M.R. Zakaria, S. Hirata, M.A. Hassan, Hydrothermal pretreatment enhanced
929 enzymatic hydrolysis and glucose production from oil palm biomass, Bioresour.
930 Technol. 176 (2015) 142–148. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.027.
931 [104] H. Zabed, J.N. Sahu, A.N. Boyce, G. Faruq, Fuel ethanol production from
932 lignocellulosic biomass : An overview on feedstocks and technological approaches,
42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

933 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 66 (2016) 751–774. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.08.038.

934 [105] C. Ofori-Boateng, K.T. Lee, Sono-assisted organosolv/H2O2 pretreatment of oil palm
935 (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) fronds for recovery of fermentable sugars: Optimization and
936 severity evaluation, Fuel. 115 (2014) 170–178. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.07.020.
937 [106] S.S.M.D. Tavva, A. Deshpande, S.R. Durbha, V.A.R. Palakollu, A.U. Goparaju, V.R.
938 Yechuri, V.R. Bandaru, V.S.R. Muktinutalapati, Bioethanol production through
939 separate hydrolysis and fermentation of Parthenium hysterophorus biomass, Renew.
940 Energy. 86 (2016) 1317–1323. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.09.074.
941 [107] M.M. Ishola, Isroi, M.J. Taherzadeh, Effect of fungal and phosphoric acid pretreatment
942 on ethanol production from oil palm empty fruit bunches (OPEFB), Bioresour.
943 Technol. 165 (2014) 9–12. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.02.053.
944 [108] T.Y. Ying, L.K. Teong, W.N.W. Abdullah, L.C. Peng, The Effect of Various
945 Pretreatment Methods on Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB) and Kenaf Core Fibers
946 for Sugar Production, Procedia Environ. Sci. 20 (2014) 328–335.
947 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.03.041.
948 [109] K. Saritpongteeraka, S. Chaiprapat, P. Boonsawang, S. Sung, Solid state co-
949 fermentation as pretreatment of lignocellulosic palm empty fruit bunch for organic
950 acid recovery and fiber property improvement, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 100 (2015)
951 172–180. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.001.
952 [110] N. Zulkiple, M.Y. Maskat, O. Hassan, Pretreatment of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Fiber
953 (OPEFB) with Aquaeous Ammonia for High Production of Sugar, Procedia Chem. 18
954 (2016) 155–161. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.01.024.
955 [111] J.D. Coral Medina, A. Woiciechowski, A. Zandona Filho, M.D. Noseda, B.S. Kaur,
956 C.R. Soccol, Lignin preparation from oil palm empty fruit bunches by sequential
957 acid/alkaline treatment - A biorefinery approach, Bioresour. Technol. 194 (2015) 172–
958 178. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.07.018.
959 [112] A.S. Baharuddin, A. Sulaiman, D.H. Kim, M.N. Mokhtar, M.A. Hassan, M. Wakisaka,
960 Y. Shirai, H. Nishida, Selective component degradation of oil palm empty fruit
961 bunches (OPEFB) using high-pressure steam, Biomass and Bioenergy. 55 (2013) 268–
962 275. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.02.013.
963 [113] R. Financie, M. Moniruzzaman, Y. Uemura, Enhanced enzymatic delignification of oil
964 palm biomass with ionic liquid pretreatment, Biochem. Eng. J. 110 (2016) 1–7.
965 doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.02.008.
966 [114] V. Barlianti, D. Dahnum, H. Hendarsyah, H. Abimanyu, Effect of Alkaline
43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

967 Pretreatment on Properties of Lignocellulosic Oil Palm Waste, Procedia Chem. 16

968 (2015) 195–201. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.12.036.
969 [115] A. Nurdiawati, S. Novianti, I.N. Zaini, B. Nakhshinieva, H. Sumida, F. Takahashi, K.
970 Yoshikawa, Evaluation of Hydrothermal Treatment of Empty Fruit Bunch for Solid
971 Fuel and Liquid Organic Fertilizer Co-Production, Elsevier B.V., 2015.
972 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.469.
973 [116] M.R. Zakaria, S. Hirata, S. Fujimoto, M.A. Hassan, Combined pretreatment with hot
974 compressed water and wet disk milling opened up oil palm biomass structure resulting
975 in enhanced enzymatic digestibility, Bioresour. Technol. 193 (2015) 128–134.
976 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.06.074.
977 [117] R. Yunus, S.F. Salleh, N. Abdullah, D.R.A. Biak, Effect of ultrasonic pre-treatment on
978 low temperature acid hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch, Bioresour. Technol.
979 101 (2010) 9792–9796. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.07.074.
980 [118] W.-I. Choi, J.-Y. Park, J.-P. Lee, Y.-K. Oh, Y.C. Park, J.S. Kim, J.M. Park, C.H. Kim,
981 J.-S. Lee, Optimization of NaOH-catalyzed steam pretreatment of empty fruit bunch.,
982 Biotechnol. Biofuels. 6 (2013) 170. doi:10.1186/1754-6834-6-170.
983 [119] S.X. Chin, C.H. Chia, S. Zakaria, Z. Fang, S. Ahmad, Ball milling pretreatment and
984 diluted acid hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch (EFB) fibres for the production
985 of levulinic acid, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 52 (2015) 85–92.
986 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.01.028.
987 [120] P. Noomtim, B. Cheirsilp, Production of butanol from palm empty fruit bunches
988 hydrolyzate by Clostridium acetobutylicum, Energy Procedia. 9 (2011) 140–146.
989 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.09.015.
990 [121] N. Lebaz, A. Cockx, M. Spérandio, A. Liné, Application of the Direct Quadrature
991 Method of Moments for the modelling of the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose : I .
992 Case of soluble substrate, Chem. Eng. Sci. 149 (2016) 306–321.
993 doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.04.018.
994 [122] O. Hassan, T.P. Ling, M.Y. Maskat, R.M. Illias, K. Badri, J. Jahim, N.M. Mahadi,
995 Optimization of pretreatments for the hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber
996 (EFBF) using enzyme mixtures, Biomass and Bioenergy. 56 (2013) 137–146.
997 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.04.021.
998 [123] Y. Lin, S. Tanaka, Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: Current state and
999 prospects, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 69 (2006) 627–642. doi:10.1007/s00253-005-
1000 0229-x.
44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1001 [124] M. Ask, K. Olofsson, T. Di, L. Ruohonen, M. Penttilä, G. Lidén, L. Olsson,

1002 Challenges in enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of pretreated Arundo donax
1003 revealed by a comparison between SHF and SSF, Process Biochem. 47 (2012) 1452–
1004 1459. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.05.016.
1005 [125] K. Eop, D. Chung, Y. Kim, B. Chung, G. Choi, High-titer ethanol production from
1006 simultaneous saccharification and fermentation using a continuous feeding system,
1007 FUEL. 145 (2015) 18–24. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.12.052.
1008 [126] T. Paschos, C. Xiros, P. Christakopoulos, Simultaneous saccharification and
1009 fermentation by co-cultures of Fusarium oxysporum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae
1010 enhances ethanol production from liquefied wheat straw at high solid content, Ind.
1011 Crops Prod. 76 (2015) 793–802. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.07.061.
1012 [127] A. Fazeli, F. Bakhtvar, L. Jahanshaloo, N.A. Che Sidik, A.E. Bayat, Malaysia’s stand
1013 on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
1014 Rev. 58 (2016) 1007–1016. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.12.270.
1015 [128] I. Komonkiat, B. Cheirsilp, Felled oil palm trunk as a renewable source for biobutanol
1016 production by Clostridium spp., Bioresour. Technol. 146 (2013) 200–207.
1017 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.07.067.
1018 [129] E. Triwahyuni, Muryanto, Y. Sudiyani, H. Abimanyu, The effect of substrate loading
1019 on simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process for bioethanol production
1020 from oil palm empty fruit bunches, Energy Procedia. 68 (2015) 138–146.
1021 doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.03.242.
1022 [130] M.A. Hossain, J. Jewaratnam, P. Ganesan, Prospect of hydrogen production from oil
1023 palm biomass by thermochemical process – A review, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 41
1024 (2016) 16637–16655. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.07.104.
1025 [131] P.Y. Gan, Z.D. Li, Econometric study on Malaysias palm oil position in the world
1026 market to 2035, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 740–747.
1027 doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.07.059.
1028 [132] N.A. Basri, A.T. Ramli, A.S. Aliyu, Malaysia energy strategy towards sustainability :
1029 A panoramic overview of the bene fi ts and challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
1030 42 (2015) 1094–1105. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.10.056.
1031 [133] S. Brethauer, C.E. Wyman, Review: Continuous hydrolysis and fermentation for
1032 cellulosic ethanol production, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 4862–4874.
1033 doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.11.009.
1034 [134] C.E. Wyman, What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol, Trends
45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1035 Biotechnol. 25 (2007) 153–157. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.02.009.

1036 [135] M. Balat, H. Balat, C. ??z, Progress in bioethanol processing, Prog. Energy Combust.
1037 Sci. 34 (2008) 551–573. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.11.001.
1038 [136] F. Talebnia, D. Karakashev, I. Angelidaki, Production of bioethanol from wheat straw:
1039 An overview on pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation, Bioresour. Technol. 101
1040 (2010) 4744–4753. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.11.080.
1041 [137] B.D. Solomon, J.R. Barnes, K.E. Halvorsen, Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History,
1042 economics, and energy policy, Biomass and Bioenergy. 31 (2007) 416–425.
1043 doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.01.023.
1044 [138] M.B. Sainz, Commercial cellulosic ethanol: The role of plant-expressed enzymes,
1045 Biofuels Glob. Impact Renew. Energy, Prod. Agric. Technol. Adv. 45 (2011) 237–264.
1046 doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7145-6_13.
1047

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

HIGHLIGHTS.

 A potential of biomass waste, EFBs as a feedstock are significant in term of

availability, cost-effective and sustainability for conversion into energy from palm oil

industry in Malaysia.

 Pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation process for bioethanol production.

 Empty fruit bunches (EFBs) bioconversion process analysis are studied based on

several published manuscript and research work.