Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/rser

Environmental life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from waste

cooking oil: A systematic review
Homa Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha a, b, Abdul-Sattar Nizami c, Soteris A. Kalogirou d,
Vijai Kumar Gupta e, f, Young-Kwon Park g, Alireza Fallahi h, Alawi Sulaiman i, Meisam Ranjbari j,
Hassan Rahnama k, Mortaza Aghbashlo h, Wanxi Peng a, *, Meisam Tabatabaei l, a, b, **
a
Henan Province Engineering Research Center for Biomass Value-added Products, School of Forestry, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China
b
Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam), Terengganu, Malaysia
c
Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Cyprus University of Technology, Kitiou Kyprianou 36, 3041, Limassol, Cyprus
e
Biorefining and Advanced Materials Research Center, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
f
Centre for Safe and Improved Food, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
g
School of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul, 02504, Republic of Korea
h
Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
i
Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
j
Department of Economics and Statistics “Cognetti de Martiis”, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
k
Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
l
Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE), Institute of Tropical Aquaculture and Fisheries (AKUATROP), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus,
Terengganu, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Waste cooking oil (WCO) disposal in landfills or discharge into sewer systems could cause severe environmental
Waste cooking oil challenges. Therefore, extensive efforts are made to develop strategies for its effective management, aligned with
Used cooking oil circular bioeconomy and zero-discharge principles and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
Environmental pollution
Among existing strategies, converting WCO into biodiesel is promising; however, biodiesel production from this
Biodiesel production
waste stream could induce many direct and indirect environmental impacts, which should be scrutinized using
Sustainability
Life cycle assessment advanced sustainability assessment tools. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a powerful tool that can be applied to
assess the environmental sustainability of WCO biodiesel production in comparison with diesel and first-
generation biodiesel production. Accordingly, the present review aims to scrutinize the existing literature on
the LCA analysis of WCO biodiesel production to shed light on the state-of-the-art of the application of this
methodology in this domain, identify research gaps, and introduce future research opportunities. Although
environmental assessment of biodiesel production by LCA is well-established, several limitations and concerns
still exist. Overall, system boundaries have generally been clearly defined in the published literature; however,
some studies have ignored waste management; for example, disposal of soap and other solid residues has usually
been removed from the analysis. Furthermore, the “zero-burden assumption” applied to WCO (as biodiesel
feedstock) in the published literature might not be a valid hypothesis since this waste stream could be a raw
material for some other applications. At the inventory level, the inadequacy of the data, particularly information
associated with the production of novel catalysts (including enzymes) and materials used for product purifica-
tion, is also a problematic issue for the current and under development technologies used in WCO biodiesel
production. Therefore, future studies should focus on decreasing the existing uncertainties mentioned throughout
the present work. Moreover, efforts should be put into assessing the environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel
production systems by employing innovative techniques, e.g., hydrodynamic cavitation reactors, integrating

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author. Henan Province Engineering Research Center for Biomass Value-added Products, School of Forestry, Henan Agricultural University,
Zhengzhou 450002, China.
E-mail addresses: pengwanxi@[Link] (W. Peng), [Link]@[Link], meisam_tab@[Link] (M. Tabatabaei).

[Link]
Received 15 May 2021; Received in revised form 3 March 2022; Accepted 28 March 2022
Available online 6 April 2022
1364-0321/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

other renewable energy resources, and using green catalysts in the production and combustion stages of WCO
biodiesel.

Due to the problems mentioned and the raising awareness about public
health, reusing oil in the food industry and households is limited (Fig. 1).
List of abbreviations Inappropriate disposal of waste cooking oil (WCO) also poses threats
to the environment due to the release of oxidation products to the
Disability-adjusted life year DALY ecosystem [4]. The stringent standards about cooking oil reuse and
Functional unit FU disposal lead to a significant boost in WCO generation, introducing
Greenhouse gas GHG many challenges to its effective management. Over 16.5 million tons of
Global warming potential GWP WCO is produced by food industries and kitchens annually [5] that is
International Organization for Standardization ISO conventionally disposed of along with municipal solid waste in landfills
Life cycle assessment LCA [6] or discharged into the sewage system [7]. The disposal of WCO in
Life cycle inventory LCI landfills could pollute the water and soil resources and subsequently
Life cycle impact assessment LCIA disturb the ecosystem, while discharging it into the sewage system could
Sustainable Development Goals SDGs reduce sewage pipes’ diameter and block them, imposing economic and
Waste cooking oil WCO environmental costs [6]. Besides, WCO has low solubility in water
leading to adverse effects on aquatic flora and fauna by reducing dis-
solved oxygen content and limiting sunlight penetration into water [8].
WCO could isolate soil from air and water and subsequently kill the
earth organisms such as worms and bacteria. Furthermore, rats and
vermin could feed on WCO leading to their proliferation and consequent
1. Introduction
risks to human health [8].
Various strategies have been proposed to manage WCO to reduce the
Cooking oil used in food industries is typically reused for economic
destructive effects associated with its disposal. For example, WCO was
reasons; however, its reuse eventually leads to oil oxidation [1]. This
used as animal feed until the year 2000, when the European Union
phenomenon occurs due to the dissolution of oxygen in oil by repeated
banned its utilization as a livestock feed due to its role in bovine spon-
frying. The dissolved oxygen subsequently reacts with unsaturated
giform encephalopathy [9]. Another popular application has been soap
acylglycerols developing different oxidation products, i.e., poly-
production from WCO; however, it has been criticized for its significant
glycerols, acylglycerols, and dimeric and polymeric acids [2]. It has been
ecological and economic concerns [10]. More specifically, soap pro-
well documented that reusing cooking oil in food production could in-
duction results in the generation of a substantial volume of wastewater
crease cancer and cardiovascular disease risk because of its oxidized and
[11]. Since WCO has high polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs)
toxic contents [3]. In addition to oil oxidation, repeated frying also re-
levels, this wastewater is also rich in PAHs, endangering aquatic
sults in oil acidification, considered a health and food safety risk [2].

Fig. 1. Relationship between reusing cooking oil and the occurrence of cardiovascular disease [3]. With permission from Elsevier. Copyright© 2017; License
Number: 5058890003918.

2
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

ecosystems, i.e., fish and other aquatic organisms downstream [12]. [26]. Energy analysis analyzes energy systems and understands ener-
Hence, while wastewater disposal is costly, the economic value of the getic streams and thermodynamic aspects of products, services, or pro-
dark and hard soap produced from WCO is lower than the soap made cesses [27]. Despite the features mentioned, this technique is based on
from fresh oils [13]. To avoid these challenges and given the high the principle of energy conservation and solely measures the quantity of
heating value of WCO, there has been a growing number of publications an energy stream; thus, it could not sufficiently evaluate energy sus-
focusing on using WCO as an economic bioenergy resource [14]. From tainability [28]. In contrast, exergy analysis measures both the quality
the environmental point of view, the carbon contained in WCO is orig- and quantity of energy and material flows and, by systematically inte-
inated from biogenic CO2; thus, bioenergy derived from WCO has much grating the first and second laws of thermodynamics, solves shortcom-
less contribution to global warming than its petroleum-derived coun- ings of energy analysis [29]. However, economic and environmental
terpart [15]. Using WCO as a bioenergy resource also solves the chal- aspects are not considered in exergy analysis [30]. Also, the application
lenges of first-generation bioenergy, e.g., food security and high of emergy for assessing the environmental impacts of products and
fertilizer requirements, especially nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and processes has been limited so far [31].
water used in first-generation feedstock production [16]. LCA is identified as an internationally-accepted systematic tool that
On the other hand, recycling low-cost feedstocks to high-value could assess the potential environmental impacts of a product/process/
products is, in fact, an essential pillar in building a sustainable circu- service throughout its life cycle from raw materials extraction to waste
lar bioeconomy as an emerging economic paradigm [17]. Based on management, i.e., recycling and/or final disposal [32]. Moreover, it is
previous publications, “the sustainable, cascading processing of biological widely used as a critical tool to compare alternative products from an
residues into biobased products which can be shared/reused/remanufactured environmental sustainability perspective [33]. Accordingly, LCA by
and recycled, or released safely to the biosphere via organic and nutrient comprehensive comparisons could help to make informed decisions to
cycles” is known as circular bioeconomy [18]. Accordingly, converting select the sustainable alternative for products, processes, technologies,
WCO to bioenergy and biofuel could simultaneously strengthen energy and services [34]. When LCA is appropriately applied, it could estimate
security, minimize waste and environmental pollution, safeguard food the potential positive and negative effects of a product, even those
safety, and promote circular bioeconomy and sustainable development ordinarily invisible [35]. Since LCA considers the upstream flows in
[19]. WCO bioenergy refineries and their implementation are also in line manufacturing a product, this tool can also assess the impacts of mate-
with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2 (Zero rial and process choices. While by measuring the downstream impacts of
Hunger), 3 (Good Health and Well-being), 7 (Affordable and Clean En- a product in use and at the end of life, the impacts associated with its use,
ergy), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), 12 (Responsible Con- reuse, and ultimate disposal on the environment can be scrutinized [36].
sumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life Below Water), Although LCA is not fully developed, it is currently the most compre-
and 15 (Life on Land). More specifically, converting WCO to bioenergy hensive tool available for evaluating environmental impacts and
and biofuel can alleviate the challenge associated with first-generation resource depletion that could be associated with products, processes,
feedstocks, i.e., competition between fuel and food [20], contributing and services [37]. For example, LCA does not cover all spectrum of
to “Zero Hunger”. Moreover, if WCO is disposed of in landfills, it may anthropogenic consequences to the environment. It is also very sensitive
leach into the soil, and it is then washed into water resources and pol- to uncertainties [38]. Nevertheless, this tool is widely used in waste
lutes drinking water [6]. Therefore, bioenergy production from WCO management, including WCO [39].
can stop this risk and contribute to “Good Health and Well-being". Various studies have been conducted on bioenergy and biofuel pro-
In addition, disposal of WCO in water resources can result in unfa- duction from WCO but detailed LCA of WCO biodiesel production to
vorable impacts on flora and fauna in marine and terrestrial ecosystems assess its environmental performance is still critical. It should be high-
due to an increase in the biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen lighted that the difference between variables and assumptions and, more
demand, soil compaction and impermeability, rising soil and water importantly, overlooking some influential variables could lead to con-
acidity [21]. Accordingly, WCO to bioenergy and biofuel can contribute flicting results reported by LCA studies [40]. Accordingly, although
to “Life Below Water” and “Life on Land.” Furthermore, valorization of environmental assessment of WCO biodiesel production is
WCO into renewable, less-toxic, highly biodegradable, low-carbon bio- well-established in many parts of the world, it is still essential to further
fuel [15] can play a key role in “Affordable and Clean Energy”, “Sus- improve LCA studies for WCO biodiesel production. In light of that and
tainable Cities and Communities”, ’’Responsible Consumption and due to the potential variations in environmental impacts associated with
Production” and “Climate Action”. SDGs are responsible for achieving a WCO biodiesel production, this review scrutinizes the literature on LCA
more sustainable and better future for all inhabitants of the earth [22]. studies of WCO biodiesel production to comprehend the underlying LCA
These goals address the world’s challenges, including inequality, methodology (including influential variables and assumptions), identify
poverty, peace, justice, climate change, and environmental degradation research gaps, and offer future research opportunities. To the best of our
[23]. It seems that the production and consumption of energy and fuel knowledge, the present work is the first critical systematic review on the
derived from WCO due to economic, social, and environmental benefits environmental assessment of biodiesel production from WCO (as a
are in line with the SDGs. hazardous waste) using the LCA approach to the best of our knowledge.
Despite the desirable properties of bioenergy and biofuel produced Table 1 summarizes the most relevant review papers published on
from WCO, the collection and transportation of WCO are associated with different aspects of WCO biodiesel production to elaborate on the
several environmental hazards [24]. Furthermore, pretreatment of WCO originality of the current review.
involves the use of energy and chemical whose production and con-
sumption can remarkably affect the overall sustainability of the bio- 2. Converting WCO to biodiesel using transesterification
energy and biofuel produced from WCO. Therefore, converting WCO to
bioenergy and biofuel might also lead to many direct and indirect con- The literature review showed that numerous studies have attempted
cerns, which should be scrutinized using advanced sustainability to convert WCO into energy and fuel using different technologies, such
assessment tools, such as techno-economic analysis, energy analysis, as hydrotreating [61], gasification [62], pyrolysis [63], and trans-
exergy analysis, emergy analysis, and life cycle assessment (LCA). esterification [64]. Among the technologies introduced so far, trans-
Briefly, by identifying the technical and economic bottlenecks, the esterification is well known as a cost-effective and eco-friendly pathway
techno-economic analysis could offer solutions and recommendations for the valorization of WCO into a renewable energy resource, i.e.,
for attaining the most profitable products, services, or processes [25]. biodiesel [65]. Stoichiometrically, transesterification is the process
However, this method could not reflect a clear picture of the associated through which 1 mol of triglyceride reacts with 3 mol of light alcohols in
environmental emissions, resource depletion, or thermodynamic aspects the presence of a catalyst to form 3 mol of esters and 1 mol of glycerol

3
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Table 1 feedstock for biodiesel production [73]. Due to feedstock availability

Comparison of the most relevant review papers published on WCO biodiesel and easy conversion, 95% of the world biodiesel is produced from
production and the present review. first-generation feedstocks, i.e., food crops such as soy, wheat, rapeseed,
Reference Technical Sustainability Discussion Comparing and corn [74]. However, due to concerns caused by the impacts of
aspects aspects on LCA results first-generation biodiesel on the environment and food security, bio-
(environmental, challenges of WCO diesel production from second-generation feedstocks, i.e., non-edible
economic, or associated biodiesel
vegetable oils, WCO, and animal fats, has been proposed [75].
social) with LCA production
studies of with other Although biodiesel production from non-edible crops could resolve the
WCO biodiesel infamous fuel vs. food competition, an economic yield of such crops is
biodiesel generations only achieved using arable land and proper agricultural practices,
production
including fertilization and irrigation [53]. Such challenges and short-
Kulkarni and ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ comings highlight waste resources as the most promising feedstocks for
Dalai [41] biodiesel production. It should also be quoted that 70–95% of the total
Talebian-
biodiesel production cost is contributed by feedstock cost, further indi-
✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
Kiakalaieh
et al. [42] cating the favorable economic features of WCO biodiesel owing to the
Gnanaprakasam ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ low-cost nature of this feedstock [76].
et al. [43] Despite the advantages mentioned above, biodiesel production from
Maddikeri et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
WCO is associated with some environmental hazards. For example, it
[44]
Banerjee and ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ usually involves complex collection and pretreatment processes. The
Chakraborty increased energy for collection, transportation, pretreatment, etc., and
[45] increased material inputs for pretreatment and reaction can induce
Lam et al. [46] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ significant environmental impacts, affecting the overall environmental
Yaakob et al. [6]
sustainability of WCO biodiesel [19]. In line with this, the process of
✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
Mansir et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
[47] producing WCO-derived biodiesel should be carefully examined and
Gaur et al. [48] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ scrutinized using sustainability assessment tools such as LCA.
Tan et al. [49] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
de Araújo et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
3. Research design
[50]
Mazubert et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
[51] A systematic literature review adopted from Ranjbari et al. [77]
Singh et al. [52] ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ using the PRISMA framework [78] was carried out herein to provide a
Goh et al. [2] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ comprehensive body of knowledge in LCA applications in biodiesel
Khan et al. [53]
production from WCO. The search protocol and data collection process
✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯
Khodadadi et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
[5] are explained in the following section.
Kathirvel et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
[54] 3.1. Search protocol and data collection
Moazeni et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
[55]
Fonseca et al. ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
To ensure sufficient coverage of the target literature, a search pro-
[56] tocol was developed to systematically identify the most relevant articles
Enweremadu ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ through (i) defining a suitable search string, (ii) focusing on a reliable
and Mbarawa database, (iii) formulating proper inclusion and exclusion criteria, and
[57]
(iv) screening articles to construct the final sample for further analysis.
Enweremadu ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
and Rutto [58] On this basis, a structured search string based on different combinations
Tsoutsos et al. ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ of the three main keywords “biodiesel”, “WCO”, and “LCA” was
[59] designed as follows: (“waste cooking oil” OR “waste frying oil” OR “used
Math et al. [60] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
cooking oil” OR “WCO” OR “WFO” OR “UCO”) AND (“biodiesel” OR
Present Review
“fatty acid methyl ester” OR “FAME”) AND (“lifecycle assessment” OR
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

“life cycle assessment” OR “life-cycle assessment” OR “LCA”). The Web

[66]. The boiling point of the alcohols used (mostly methanol or of Science (WoS) Core Collection was selected as the main database for
ethanol) limits the reaction temperature in the approximate range of conducting this research. The search string was performed to search
50–75 ◦ C at atmospheric pressure [67]. Therefore, unlike pyrolysis and within the topic field, representing titles, abstracts, author keywords,
gasification, the reaction does not require high temperatures to proceed. and keywords plus of documents. As a result, the initial search returned
By converting WCO into alkyl (methyl or ethyl) esters through trans- 122 articles. To ensure the reliability of the sample, the results were
esterification, the molecular weight, viscosity, flash point, and pour limited to peer-reviewed journal articles in the English language, lead-
point values are decreased, while the volatility value is increased [68]. ing to excluding 5 articles. The 117 remaining articles in the second
Therefore, WCO biodiesel could be used in neat or blended forms with phase were thoroughly screened and evaluated in two stages through
diesel while not requiring any engine modifications [69]. Other ad- reading their abstracts and full texts, leading to a total of 45 eligible
vantages attributed to WCO biodiesel vs. diesel include higher biode- articles. Moreover, using a snowballing technique, 4 more articles were
gradability, higher combustion efficiency, inherent lubricity, higher added to the list to construct the final sample of 49 articles for further
cetane number, higher flash point, and lower sulfur and aromatic con- analysis in the present study. The details of the data collection process
tent [70]. Also, reports emphasize that WCO biodiesel combustion re- are tabulated in Table 2. In this vein, the full texts of articles were deeply
duces harmful emissions such as unburnt hydrocarbons, particulate scrutinized through conducting a content analysis to identify, classify,
matter, and CO than diesel [71]. Fig. 2 schematically shows a conven- and synthesize the existing literature on LCA of biodiesel production
tional transesterification process of WCO. from WCO.
It should be noted that edible seed plants, capable of synthesizing
and storing triglycerides in seeds, are considered first-generation

4
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Fig. 2. Schematic presentation of a conventional transesterification process of WCO (adopted from Daud et al. [72]). With permission from Elsevier. Copyright©
2014; 5058900103538. (This figure has been completely redesigned and redrawn by the authors of the present manuscript).

function and boundary of the system under investigation attentively to

Table 2
achieve the defined goals. A review of the various LCA studies conducted
Search protocol and data collection details.
on assessing the environmental burdens of WCO biodiesel production
Search string “waste cooking oil” OR “waste frying oil” OR “used reveals that diverse goals have been pursued. Determination of the
cooking oil” OR “WCO” OR “WFO” OR “UCO” AND
feasibility of WCO biodiesel production in terms of environmental per-
“biodiesel” OR “fatty acid methyl ester” OR “FAME”
AND “lifecycle assessment” OR “life cycle assessment” spectives by referring to the methodological framework in the ISO [111]
OR “life-cycle assessment” OR “LCA" was one of the most fundamental goals selected in the LCA of WCO
Database WoS biodiesel production [100]. These studies have generally focused on
Search field Topic (Titles, abstracts, author keywords, and keywords
estimating environmental burdens and identifying the main environ-
plus)
Search date September 20, 2021
mental hotspots throughout the life cycle of WCO biodiesel. Some
Years range Up to 2021 studies have extended their analysis to investigate the associated envi-
Initial result 122 articles ronmental burdens of WCO biodiesel containing various additives such
Inclusion criteria Peer-reviewed journal articles in the English language as Tabatabaei et al. [102], Khounani et al. [108], and
Exclusion criteria Conference papers, book chapters, editorial materials,
Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. [103]. In addition, some other research
letters, and non-English documents
Refined result 117 articles works investigated the environmental impacts of both WCO biodiesel
Eligible articles after 45 articles production and combustion [103]. Another group of studies, e.g.,
screening Viornery-Portillo et al. [107] and Chua et al. [112], compared the
Snowballed articles 4 articles environmental impacts and resource consumption associated with WCO
Final sample 49 articles
biodiesel production vs. diesel production. Quantification and
comparing the environmental impacts of biodiesel production from
4. Life cycle assessment in waste cooking oil biodiesel WCO with other oil feedstocks were also targeted by some investigations
production [104]. Evaluating and comparing different options/conditions for WCO
biodiesel production from an environmental perspective were focused
In light of the LCA capabilities, many researchers have employed this on by some reports [98].
methodology to assess the environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel In general, an LCA study can be carried out in two different forms, i.
during its life cycle and compared them with those of diesel. A summary e., attributional LCA and consequential LCA, depending on the goal of
of different studies conducted on the environmental impact assessment the study. Briefly, an attributional LCA estimates and presents data
of WCO biodiesel is presented in Table 3. about the environmental impacts of producing a product during its life
According to Table 3, although published studies have followed the cycle [113]. Overall, biodiesel production requires fossil inputs and
same framework, different results have been reported due to substantial chemicals that can incur different emissions at different life cycle stages
differences in goals, scopes, databases, and assumptions. The following (during production and refining or transportation) [114]. An attribu-
sections briefly discuss the difference between LCA applications in WCO tional LCA approach is an essential step to ensure that WCO biodiesel
biodiesel production. can deliver meaningful emission savings for the sector as a whole. More
specifically, this approach by finding environmental hotspots can help
protect the environment and reduce potential environmental risks
4.1. Goal and scope definition
[115]. In addition to that, when new pathways or innovative materials
are used to produce biodiesel from WCO using the transesterification
An LCA study is carried out based on the statements made in the goal
process, this approach can well identify environmental hotspots and
and scope definition stage [110]. In other words, this step is critical since
decide to upgrade the system.
the selection of methodology used in the other steps would depend on
In comparison, consequential LCA presents data about how envi-
the purpose of the study [15]. According to International Organization
ronmental impacts are changed in response to a decision [116]. In better
for Standardization (ISO) instructions, it is crucial to describe the

5
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Table 3
A summary of different studies conducted on the environmental impact assessment of the life cycle of WCO biodiesel.
System boundaries System outputs Functional unit Assessment method Highlights Ref.

Washing containers at the WCO Electricity, heat, biodiesel, 1 ton of WCO originated CML WCO biodiesel production and diesel [4]
collection point, delivering of WCO glycerol, and liquid and solid from a case study on a substitution were promising, leading to
from the collection point to the waste collection system in a savings of 2270–2860 kg CO2eq/t WCO.
plants, pretreatment of WCO, and medium-sized town
processing at the plants located in central Italy
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel, glycerol, 1 ton of biodiesel ReCiPe 2016 A sufficient WCO supply and increased [19]
transesterification, and commercial methanol, and wastes conversion rate were responsible for
biodiesel transportation promoting the environmental impacts
of WCO biodiesel.
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel 1.7 kg of biodiesel – Energy generation from glycerol and [79]
WCO biodiesel production, and waste organic waste resulted in a more
management reduction in the environmental impacts
compared with other treatments such as
landfilling, incineration, and
composting.
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel and glycerol 1 MJ of biodiesel Recipe 2008 Carbon emission savings caused by [80]
and transesterification biodiesel production from WCO in
Portugal ranged from 81 to 89%.
Production of fresh oil, WCO Biodiesel, glycerol, and 1 kg of biodiesel – Due to contaminants released during [81]
generation, WCO collection, WCO methanol the cooking process and the presence of
transportation, WCO pretreatment, sulfur compounds in WCO, the resultant
WCO transesterification and biodiesel led to more sulfur dioxide
combustion emissions compared to diesel.
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel, process glycerol, 1 ton of biodiesel CML Despite the consumption of more energy [82]
WCO delivery, pre-esterification and potassium sulphate, organic and materials, the environmental
transesterification waste, and emissions burdens of the WCO biodiesel
production were reduced if the by-
products, e.g., glycerol and potassium
sulphate, were recovered effectively.
WCO transportation, WCO Biodiesel, glycerol, and waste 1 ton of biodiesel CML Minimizing thermal and electric energy [83]
pretreatment, transesterification, and demands in the conversion of WCO to
biodiesel and glycerol transportation biodiesel led to improving the
environmental performance of WCO
biodiesel.
WCO transportation, WCO Biodiesel, glycerol, and 100 km driven by busses in – The potential mitigated annual carbon [84]
pretreatment, WCO asphalt 2014 in Shanghai, China emission was estimated at 1.51 ~ 4.52
transesterification, biodiesel × 106 tons of CO2eq due to WCO
transportation and combustion biodiesel production/combustion.
WCO collection and transportation, Biodiesel Treatment of 27.39 m3 of LIME2 Shifting from WCO-to-incineration to [39]
WCO separation, residents WCO WCO-to-biodiesel was environmentally
incineration, and WCO sound.
transesterification process
From extraction of raw materials, i.e., Biodiesel, glycerol, and other 1 kWh produced by the IMPACT 2002+ Compared with diesel, WCO biodiesel [85]
feedstock collection/production products combustion of WCO (B5) was the most eco-friendly due to
followed by fuel processing and lower brake specific fuel consumption
combustion and lower amount of exhaust emissions.
WCO biodiesel production, recovery of Biodiesel, glycerol, and other Treatment of 849.270 and IMPACT 2002+ WCO biodiesel production by alkaline [86]
methanol, washing with water, products 885.449 kg/h of WCO catalysis with acid pretreatment was
purification of biodiesel, removal of more eco-friendly than WCO biodiesel
the catalyst, purification of glycerol, production based on acid catalysis.
waste management
WCO transesterification and Biodiesel, glycerol, and 1 kg of biodiesel CML Intensifying WCO transesterification [87]
purification of biodiesel, purification liquid waste under supercritical conditions
of glycerol, waste management outperformed environmentally the
catalyzed transesterification process.
WCO biodiesel production Biodiesel 1 GJ of biodiesel – The emission-savings potential of WCO [88]
biodiesel was 89% higher than biodiesel
produced from the first-generation
feedstock.
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel and glycerol 1 ton of biodiesel CML Eutrophication was usually the worst [89]
WCO transesterification and effect of the direct disposal of WCO in
combustion water bodies.
WCO collection from households, WCO Biodiesel, glycerol, and 1 ton of biodiesel CML Transesterification by alkali catalyst [90]
transportation, WCO pretreatment liquid waste had the worst contribution to the
and transesterification environmental burdens.
From extraction of raw materials, i.e., Biodiesel, glycerol, and other 1 L B5 from the WCO IMPACT 2002+ The results of the attributional LCA [32]
feedstock collection/production products emphasized that the WCO fuel blend
followed by fuel processing and could outperform the poultry fat fuel
combustion blend in terms of ecosystem quality,
human health, and resources damage
categories.
WCO transportation to the plant, WCO Biodiesel, glycerol, and 100 km transportation – Carbon emissions from the life cycle of [91]
transesterification and combustion wastewater WCO biodiesel were 93% less than
diesel production and combustion.
(continued on next page)

6
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Table 3 (continued )
System boundaries System outputs Functional unit Assessment method Highlights Ref.

WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel and glycerol 1 ton of WCO originated IMPACT 2002+, Alkali-catalyzed WCO biodiesel [92]
and WCO transesterification from a collection system CML production was better than acid-
catalyzed from the environmental point
of view.
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Biodiesel and glycerol 1.7 kg of biodiesel – The definition of the system boundaries [93]
and WCO biodiesel production based on different scenarios played a
critical role in LCA results.
WCO biodiesel production and Biodiesel, glycerol, and About 10000 TJ of MUIO-LCA The large ecotoxicity potential of WCO- [94]
combustion wastes biodiesel derived biodiesel was a big hurdle.
WCO supply chain and collection, WCO Exhaust gases, wastes, 1 ton of biodiesel IMPACT 2002+ WCO collection mechanism had a [95]
transportation to the plant, WCO glycerol, and biodiesel significant contribution to the
pretreatment, and the alkali- environmental burdens of WCO
catalyzed transesterification of biodiesel.
treated WCO
WCO collection and transportation, Waste gas emission, 1 ton of biodiesel CML (all Higher electricity consumption was the [96]
WCO pretreatment, and WCO wastewater, heat, glycerol, categories) and most critical environmental hotspot in
transesterification process (including and biodiesel Eco-indicator 99 the transesterification process.
catalyst preparation)
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, Emissions, waste disposal, 1 MJ of biodiesel ReCiPe 2008 The environmental impacts of WCO [97]
and WCO biodiesel production glycerol, and biodiesel collection should not be neglected or
simplified.
WCO collection and transportation to Waste disposal, glycerol, and Amount of biodiesel Eco-indicator 99 Centralized production was more eco- [98]
the treatment plant, unloading and biodiesel needed to cover 1000 km friendly in small territories, while
passing through a mesh to remove in a standard diesel engine decentralization was more advisable as
any solid residue, WCO esterification, vehicle (i.e., 50 kg of the territory increased.
WCO transesterification, and WCO biodiesel).
biodiesel transportation
WCO pretreatment, WCO Biodiesel, glycerol, 1 MJ of biodiesel exergy IMPACT 2002+ The sensitivity analysis showed that the [99]
transesterification, reaction slurry monopotassium phosphate, content produced from phosphoric acid utilized for neutralizing
decantation, biodiesel washing, dipotassium phosphate, and WCO using the ultrasound- crude glycerol, electricity consumption,
biodiesel dehydration, methanol free fatty acids assisted system and methanol consumption had the
recovery, and crude glycerol most significant effect on the ecosystem
neutralization quality, human health/climate change,
and resource damage categories,
respectively.
WCO collection, WCO pretreatment, a Biodiesel, airborne 1 ton of biodiesel ReCiPe 2008 Emissions from mazut burning and [100]
two-step acid-base catalyzed emissions, wastewater, methanol were the most critical
transesterification process, i.e., acid- potassium sulphate, environmental hotspots in WCO
catalyzed esterification and alkaline potassium hydroxide, biodiesel production.
catalyst transesterification, refining methanol, and distillation
residue
Alkali-catalyzed process with an FFA Biodiesel, glycerol, salts, and 1 ton of biodiesel CML Although the supercritical methanol [101]
pretreatment, acid-catalyzed process, hazardous liquid waste process was found to be highly energy-
and supercritical methanol process intensive due to methanol recovery and
using propane as co-solvent product purification, it was proven
more straightforward, leading to
improved environmental impact than
the other production alternatives.
Extraction of raw materials to the end of Biodiesel and glycerol 1 kg of biodiesel IMPACT 2002+ Electricity consumption in WCO [102]
the production stage transesterification was the most
significant contributor to damage to
human health.
WCO collection, WCO purification, Biodiesel and glycerol 1 kg of biodiesel blends, 1 IMPACT 2002+ Adding biodiesel to diesel could [103]
WCO conversion into biodiesel by GJ fuel energy content of significantly reduce the environmental
alkali-catalyzed transesterification, biodiesel blends, 1 GJ effects of fuel consumption.
and biodiesel blending shaft work
WCO collection and WCO Refined WCO 1 kg of oil refined for Water footprint WCO biodiesel production led to lower [104]
transesterification biodiesel production based water stress impacts in all impact categories except
indices and human toxicity-cancer compared to
available water crop-based vegetable oils.
remaining
WCO collection and WCO refining Refined WCO 1 kg of oil refined for IMPACT 2002+, Blending WCO with vegetable oils was a [105]
biodiesel production ReCiPe 2008, water promising approach to reduce the
stress indices environmental impacts of biodiesel.
WCO collection, WCO Emissions, electricity, heat, Treatment of WCO and LIME2 Compared to incineration, biodiesel [106]
transesterification, and fossil-derived and biodiesel running diesel vehicle for production from WCO led to a 50–71%
diesel fuel and/or biodiesel household WCO collection reduction in environmental impacts.
consumption in a diesel-powered
collection vehicle
Production and use stages in a power Air emissions, glycerol, and 1 kWh of electricity CML Compared to diesel, using WCO [107]
generator for WCO–B25 blend power from biodiesel produced from biodiesel biodiesel in the generator to generate
power led to a significant improvement
in environmental damage caused by fuel
production and consumption.
Biodiesel supplemented with IMPACT 2002+ The use of WCO and additives extracted [108]
antioxidants from agro-waste in biodiesel production
(continued on next page)

7
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Table 3 (continued )
System boundaries System outputs Functional unit Assessment method Highlights Ref.

Raw materials to the production of the 1 kg of WCO biodiesel could reduce the damage to human
final product, i.e., WCO biodiesel augmented by WHME or health, ecosystem quality, climate
supplemented with additives PG change, and resource depletion. This
was achieved by avoiding the
production of soybean oil and synthetic
additives.
WCO collection to biodiesel use Emissions, glycerol, and 1 MJ obtained from the IMPACT 2002+ The production of WCO biodiesel [109]
power engine compared to Jatropha biodiesel resulted
in a 69% reduction in global warming
potential.

words, this approach can determine the environmental consequences of comparing different studies. Obviously, the use of multiple FUs can
an action/decision, i.e., converting WCO into biodiesel or other alter- provide more opportunities for comparisons. Although it seems that
natives. Although consequential LCA is more complex and less accurate different FUs for WCO biodiesel production (used in various studies) can
than the attributional LCA, it can assess possible environmental benefits be converted to each other for better comparison, it might not accurate
(or losses) caused by the proposed scenarios, herein, scenarios for WCO for three main reasons:
treatment [117]. Consequential LCA does not predict the future, but it
gives valuable perspective to the beneficiaries on whether WCO bio- 1) It could not be firmly stated that WCO biodiesel reported in different
diesel production is aligned with the envisioned environmental objec- studies has exactly the same energy content; for example, WCO
tives. Accordingly, its results can complement the attributional LCA biodiesel energy content was calculated at 37 MJ/kg by Goh et al.
studies on WCO biodiesel production with different goals. Hence, this [2], but at 41.53 MJ/kg by Pauline et al. [121]. So, if specific in-
approach has been used to assess the environmental consequences of formation, i.e., the specific energy content of WCO biodiesel, is not
WCO biodiesel production [32]. available, converting an FU based on energy/exergy content into
mass could be questionable.
4.1.1. Functional unit 2) Converting the distance traveled to mass might also be inaccurate
Overall, selecting a functional unit (FU) is one of the LCA’s unique because different vehicles traveling a certain distance under different
features differentiating it from the other environmental assessment ap- working conditions (e.g., engine speed, load, etc.) might not
proaches [118]. As a fundamental element for the LCA analysis, FU consume a specific amount of fuel as well [122].
makes the results obtained from various studies comparable [119]. FU 3) The amount of WCO used to produce 1 kg of biodiesel is not the same
quantifies the function of the studied system and provides a reference in different studies due to the different transesterification conditions
based on which all inputs and outputs to/from the studied system are applied [99]. Therefore, converting an FU based on the mass of WCO
normalized [7]. FU is usually based on the system’s output in used into the mass of biodiesel produced without sufficient infor-
manufacturing systems, while in waste management systems, FU is mation related to the transesterification process could be inaccurate.
selected based on the system’s input, i.e., the amount of waste treated
[120]. Different FUs could be considered for environmental assessment 4.1.2. System boundary
of WCO biodiesel production depending on the specified goals and As a vital part of the LCA methodology, the system boundary de-
scope, including material-oriented (mass or volume), service-oriented termines the scope of the study [123]. It is an imaginary line drawn
(transport distances), and energy-oriented FU. around processes enclosed in a product system [124]. Generally, system
Examples of mass-oriented FU include the works carried out by Sajid boundaries in an LCA study designed based on ISO standards could be
et al. [95], Lombardi et al. [4], Chung et al. [96], Foteinis et al. [100], determined based on gate-to-gate, cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave, and
and Morais et al. [101], who considered 1 ton or 1000 kg WCO biodiesel cradle-to-cradle approaches [125].
produced as FU. Also, Tabatabaei et al. [102] and Khounani et al. [108] In WCO biodiesel production, system boundaries are generally
defined FU as 1 kg of WCO biodiesel production. This definition of FU limited to WCO collection, WCO processing, WCO transportation to
reflects WCO biodiesel production as the primary function. On the transesterification plant, and power generation (cradle-to-grave) [109].
contrary, Ortner et al. [7] and Yano et al. [106] considered the man- Therefore, in WCO biodiesel production, all resources, chemicals, ma-
agement and treatment of 1 ton of WCO for biodiesel production as FU. terials, energy carriers, transportations of different materials, pollutant
Such an FU can help to compare various WCO treatment alternatives. emissions into the air, water, and soil, related to each process, and
Since biodiesel is mainly used as a transportation fuel, some re- exhaust gases related to biodiesel combustion should be included in the
searchers considered the amount of WCO biodiesel needed to cover a system boundary [95]. However, in studies in which the cradle-to-gate
specified distance (e.g., 1000 km) in a standard diesel engine vehicle as approach was used, the biodiesel combustion step (power generation)
FU [98]. However, choosing distance as a FU may be challenging due to was excluded, e.g., Sajid et a1. [95], Lombardi et al. [4], Chung et al.
differences in engine type, route traveled, weather conditions, etc. The [96], Khounani et al. [108], and Foteinis et al. [100] (Fig. 3). Hence,
third class of FU assumed in some studies is an energy/exergy reference comparing various studies with high accuracy would not be feasible.
of the output product. For instance, Aghbashlo et al. [99] considered “1 It should be noted that WCO collection and transportation from
MJ of biodiesel exergy content produced from WCO” FU as while Cal- households to collection sites could be neglected in lab-scale studies
deira et al. [97] defined FU as “1 MJ of biodiesel energy content pro- [99]. Moreover, Viornery-Portillo et al. [107] argued that given the
duced from WCO”. The energy obtained from the combustion of a highly variable average distance between production facilities and
certain amount of WCO biodiesel in an engine or generator has also been filling stations, the transportation of WCO biodiesel could be excluded
considered as FU in several studies such as Tabatabaei et al. [102] from the system boundary in studies focused on the impacts of the WCO
Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. [103], Viornery-Portillo et al. [107], and biodiesel production and utilization on the environment. Similarly,
Khang et al. [109]. This definition reflects energy recovery from WCO as Lombardi et al. [4] implied that WCO transportation from households
the primary function. The multifunctional nature of biodiesel produc- and restaurants to collection stations would depend on local conditions
tion from WCO (e.g., waste treatment, biodiesel production, and energy and arrangements. Hence, these studies concluded that this step could
recovery from WCO) implies that a single FU may not be ideal for be excluded from the analysis.

8
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Fig. 3. The system boundary of the WCO biodiesel production with a cradle-to-gate approach [100]. With permission from Elsevier. Copyright© 2020; License
Number: 5058900866042.

In the LCA of WCO biodiesel, construction and demolition of the presented by previous studies [102]. The foreground data is directly
plant are also generally ignored, such as Aghbashlo et al. [99], Chung linked to WCO biodiesel production/combustion [99], and background
et al. [96], and Fernandez et al. [90]. Moreover, many LCA studies data includes data related to environmental impacts of production,
conducted on WCO biodiesel, without providing a specific reason, distribution, and transportation of fuels, electricity, chemicals, and
ignored or, in better words, excluded the environmental impacts asso- other ancillary materials that interact directly with the foreground system
ciated with the production of the capital equipment, e.g., Zhao et al. of WCO biodiesel production [4]. When this data cannot be obtained
[19], Sajid et al. [95], and Caldeira et al. [97]. Although on a small scale, locally, reliable databases such as the EcoInvent database developed by
such exclusions might not exert significant effects on the results ob- the Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories could be used [128]. How-
tained, on an industrial scale, lots of materials and energy are spent on ever, using different databases can also be challenging because of the
the construction and demolition of the plant and capital equipment. considerable variations in the environmental impacts computed by a
Accordingly, it would be advisable to properly justify such exclusions at given LCA method [129]. This issue can make it difficult to compare the
an industrial scale, and future studies should assess the associated im- results reported on WCO biodiesel production by various studies. Also,
pacts on the final results. The biodiesel production from WCO requires databases are highly subject to change over time due to the inclusion of
additional stages, including feedstock pretreatment and hence, addi- new insights and changes in attitudes, events, population, and legisla-
tional equipment compared to its first-generation counterpart [126]. tions [130].
This could further deepen the consequences of excluding capital The inadequacy of the data, particularly information related to solid
equipment at an industrial scale, underestimating some of the environ- waste and wastewater treatment, novel catalysts production, etc., is also
mental impacts of biodiesel produced from WCO. Furthermore, many considered very problematic for current and under development tech-
studies ignored waste management following WCO biodiesel produc- nologies used in WCO biodiesel production [131]. This issue leads to
tion; for example, disposal of soap and other solid residues [102] or even uncertainty and may limit the robustness of the results for
wastewater treatment [80] were sometimes removed from the system decision-making, particularly in comparative studies. The foreground
boundaries. Moreover, despite the importance of labor, especially in the data are either obtained from case studies (laboratory or industrial scale)
collection and refining stages, the environmental impacts associated or are simulated based on various sources. For example, Foteinis et al.
with labor are generally neglected in LCA studies of WCO biodiesel [100] collected actual LCI data from an industrial (40 kt annual pro-
production. duction capacity) biodiesel production plant. Similarly, Yano et al.
[106] obtained inventory data of WCO biodiesel production from a
4.2. Life cycle inventory production facility in Kyoto city. Viornery-Portillo et al. [107] modeled
LCI for WCO biodiesel based on experimental data obtained from the
Among the steps of an LCA study, life cycle inventory (LCI) is the plant IPN-GBD-1000®, located in the northern part of Mexico City.
most complicated, costly, and time-consuming [127]. This step quan- Lombardi et al. [4] used an Italian case study to collect data related
tifies and accumulates the input and output data related to the defined to the pretreatment of WCO, while data on the WCO biodiesel processes
system. According to the ISO, LCI includes the amounts of required were gathered from the literature. Chung et al. [96] retrieved all the
energy and materials as inputs and the amounts of products, essential information required for LCA of WCO biodiesel production
co-products, emissions into the air, water, soil, and solid and liquid from various sources. Morais et al. [101] modeled the WCO biodiesel
wastes as outputs during all the considered processes [111]. process and, based on the developed model, simulated the data needed
The two sets of data, i.e., background data and foreground data, for for the inventory analysis. Iglesias et al. [98] extracted data of the inputs
WCO biodiesel production have been gathered in the inventory lists and outputs for the WCO biodiesel production from bibliographic

9
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

sources and used software resources to simulate the data about trans- allocated among the co-products according to a physical relationship
portation [98]. between them, i.e., mass, energy, or economic value [143]. It should be
Although direct data collection is more accurate than simulations noted that ISO recommends system expansion as the first choice, while
and database use, measurement error, human error, environmental the EU Directives’ preference for biofuel production systems is alloca-
noise, and natural randomness can lead to uncertainty in data and, tion based on energy content [144].
accordingly, the final results obtained [132]. More specifically, Huij- Biodiesel is commonly produced by transesterification, which refers
bregts et al. [133] argued that uncertainty in observed, measured values to a catalyzed chemical reaction between WCO and alcohol to yield
(parameter uncertainty), uncertainty in underlying mathematical re- biodiesel and glycerol [145]. Glycerol is a valuable by-product with over
lationships, and variations in normative choices (scenario uncertainty) two thousand different applications, especially in personal care, phar-
are the primary sources of uncertainty in LCA. maceuticals, cosmetics, and foods [146] (Fig. 4). Hence, studies con-
As previously discussed, studies on WCO biodiesel production have ducted on the environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel generally
various assumptions, data, and scenarios; hence, their results are prone allocate the environmental burdens of the transesterification process to
to high uncertainties. Monte Carlo analysis is one of the most important biodiesel and glycerol.
tools used to address the uncertainty issue. This technique has also been For instance, in some investigations, e.g., Morais et al. [101] and
employed to improve the decision-making in LCA of WCO biodiesel Viornery-Portillo et al. [107], the environmental burdens of the trans-
production [97]. For example, Caldeira et al. [97] claimed that different esterification process were distributed between WCO biodiesel and its
sources of variation found in WCO biodiesel production are due to the by-product, i.e., glycerol, according to the respective mass flowrate of
lack of precise data in characterizing parameters related to inventory, each product stream. It should be noted that K-fertilizer is also intro-
including the consumption of fuel, electricity, catalyst (especially novel duced as a by-product in WCO biodiesel production [148]. Generally,
catalysts), methanol and the filtering material. In light of that, they used biodiesel mass output is about 90% of the total mass produced in the
Monte Carlo simulation and managed to propagate parametric uncer- transesterification; thus, 90% of the environmental burden of this pro-
tainty into the environmental burdens. Khounani et al. [108] also suc- cess is allocated to WCO biodiesel, and the remaining 10% is allocated to
cessfully analyzed the uncertainty of the developed WCO biodiesel glycerol [102]. Some studies have followed the EU Directive and allo-
production scenarios (including applying various additives) by Monte cated the environmental burdens associated with WCO biodiesel and the
Carlo analysis. Despite its significant benefits, the Monte Carlo method co-product based on energy content [104] or exergy content [103].
suffers from some disadvantages, which are computationally expensive Cherubini et al. [149] claim that the approach used for allocation is one
and time-consuming [134]. Also, assessing the probability distribution of the most important sources of uncertainty of LCA results. For instance,
of the input parameters by Monte Carlo simulation is difficult [135]. The the biodiesel/glycerol ratio in terms of mass, energy, and exergy content
faculty version of SimaPro, as one of the most important software used in is not the same, leading to different results. Moreover, the lack of uni-
LCA, cannot conduct Monte Carlo analysis. Accordingly, the application formity in allocation significantly limits the possibility of comparing the
of Monte Carlo analysis is limited, requiring future studies to overcome findings of various studies. Therefore, future studies on WCO biodiesel
these challenges. production should conduct sensitivity analysis considering different
On the other hand, the uncertainty in the output of a system, hereon allocation methods.
environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel production, could be analyzed Foteinis et al. [100] avoided the conventional allocation approach
by “sensitivity analysis” based on different sources of uncertainty in the and used the system expansion (substitution process) approach to assess
inputs [136]. More specifically, sensitivity analysis is conducted to un- the environmental burdens of the WCO transesterification process. They
derstand how the uncertainties in the material and energy flows could credited WCO biodiesel production to the avoided consumption of ma-
affect the outputs, i.e., environmental impacts [99]. Different studies terials and energy and the associated emissions of synthetic glycerol and
have used the conventional perturbation analysis, developed by Hei- K-fertilizer production [100]. In an interesting study, Caldeira et al. [97]
jungs et al. [137], to determine the sensitivity of environmental impacts compared the different methodological choices, i.e., system expansion,
of WCO biodiesel production based on inputs, i.e., material and energy allocation (mass, energy, or economic), and no allocation (allocating all
flows. For instance, Lombardi et al. [4] studied the effect of parameters environmental burdens to WCO biodiesel). They reported that the
such as electricity, transport distance, and heat consumption in WCO environmental impacts calculated based on the system expansion
biodiesel production on global warming potential (GWP) and cumula- approach were significantly lower than those calculated based on the
tive exergy consumption by assuming a ±10% variation of parameters allocation approach. They also argued that the system expansion
at a time. Aghbashlo et al. [99] also analyzed the effect of ±10%, ±15%, approach introduced a credit of 4.2 g CO2eq/MJ, out of which 85% was
and ±20% change in inputs of an ultrasound-assisted system converting caused by replacing natural gas with glycerol for heat production. It
WCO into biodiesel on human health, ecosystem quality, climate should be noted that the application of the system expansion approach
change, and resource damage categories. This method was also used by in WCO biodiesel production systems could also complicate comparisons
Tabatabaei et al. [102] and Khang et al. [109] to investigate the sensi- between studies. This is ascribed to the fact that the conventional
tivity of environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel pro- products supposedly to be replaced by the co-products generated
duction/consumption due to input parameters. However, sensitivity throughout WCO biodiesel production (e.g., K-fertilizer, glycerol) could
analysis is based on assumptions, and therefore, its application for future be different due to available technologies, price elasticities, and con-
predictions could be erroneous. sumer preferences [150].
In multi-product systems such as biodiesel production systems, co- It should be noted that the choice of allocation method or no allo-
products are produced in substantial quantities and have high energy cation is directly linked to the goal of the study under investigation. For
content and economic value. Hence, they could significantly affect the instance, Eguchi et al. [151] defined the study’s goal as understanding
LCA results [138]. Allocating environmental impacts among output how upstream CO2 emissions attributed to the supply chain could be
products in multi-product systems is one of the most challenging issues mitigated by feeding biodiesel plants with WCO. Hence, they did not use
in LCA studies [139]. There are different approaches to allocate envi- any allocations regarding the outputs, i.e., biodiesel and glycerol.
ronmental impacts in these systems based on mass, energy, and eco-
nomic value [140]. An entirely different approach used in LCA studies to 4.3. Life cycle impact assessment
allocate environmental impacts is “system expansion” [141]. This
approach assumes that co-products replace outputs of other conven- According to the ISO standard, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is
tional systems and lead to avoided environmental burdens [142]. When the third step of an LCA study following the goal definition and LCI and
system expansion is not feasible, the system’s environmental impacts are preceding the interpretation of the results step [152]. This step is

10
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Fig. 4. Different applications of glycerol in various industries [147]. With permission from Elsevier. Copyright© 2013; License Number: 5058901062037.

conducted to assess the magnitude of the contribution of elementary both midpoint and endpoint approaches, is used to calculate the
flows to environmental impacts [153]. Several LCIA methods, including impacts/damages of WCO biodiesel production on the environment
CML, EDIP 2003, Eco-indicator 99, IMPACT 2002+, LIME, TRACI, [100]. While capable of presenting the results in single scores, this
LUCAS, Recipe, IMPACT world+, etc., have been developed and pub- method is based on the most common environmental policy principles,
lished. LCIA methods can be oriented towards midpoints that are such as climate change mitigation [100]. Some methods have been
problem areas or endpoints that are impact-quantifiable items, including developed for use in a specific area, such as LIME in Japan, that is based
human health, ecosystem quality, and resource depletion [154]. on the weather and population density of this country. Accordingly,
Depending on the goal defined in the first step of an LCA study, different Yano et al. [106] assessed the environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel
LCIA methods could be used to assess the environmental impacts of production in Kyoto city using LIME.
WCO biodiesel production. Finally, it should be taken into account that different methods cover
Since GWP 100a is currently a critical environmental issue, some a different number of substances. For example, the number of substances
studies have focused only on calculating this indicator in the life cycle of covered by IMPACT 2002+ is 1500, while ReCiPe covers 3000 ones
WCO biodiesel production [155]. The GWP 100a method was developed [157]. Hence, using different methods in LCIA of WCO biodiesel pro-
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its duction could lead to varying magnitudes of environmental burdens,
characterization factor is based on a 100-year time horizon for each limiting comparability. Moreover, various methods are operated based
GHG emission to the air. When water footprint is of concern, water stress on different midpoint and endpoint categories and various emission
indices and available water remaining indicators could be used. For factors, leading to different results.
instance, Caldeira et al. [104] calculated and compared the water
scarcity footprint of WCO biodiesel production with crop-based vege- 5. Environmental burdens of waste cooking biodiesel
table oil biodiesel production. production
Viornery-Portillo et al. [107] calculated the environmental impact
indicators of WCO biodiesel production using the CML methodology. 5.1. Environmental impacts of waste cooking biodiesel: climate change
They argued that this method is well aligned with the environmental focus
impact categories that must be considered in energy production systems.
The CML method was also used by Morais et al. [101] and Chung et al. One of the main purposes of LCA studies of WCO valorization into
[96]. It should be noted that although many studies have used this biodiesel is to estimate and evaluate CO2 emissions. According to Zhao
method, it cannot assess endpoints because the methodology is based on et al. [19], out of 1383 kg CO2eq/t WCO biodiesel (estimated from
midpoints. Accordingly, it is difficult to make decisions due to the va- “cradle to gate”), 68% was attributed to the transesterification stage.
riety of midpoints. Peiró et al. [82] also reported that transesterification of WCO contrib-
Eco-indicator 99, as a damage-oriented methodology in ISO termi- uted 75% to the emission of 299.60 kg CO2eq/t WCO biodiesel. Dufour
nology, is used to assess the environmental impacts of WCO biodiesel and Iribarren [83], based on a “Well-to-wheels” approach, showed that
production [96]. Iglesias et al. [98] emphasized that the results obtained each ton of WCO biodiesel released 652.16 kg CO2eq into the air. The
with this method could be expressed as a single score, facilitating transesterification step played the main role in the CO2eq emissions. In
comparing biodiesel production results from different feedstocks. The addition, Fernandez et al. [90] claimed that each ton of WCO biodiesel
IMPACT 2002+ method has also been used to assess the environmental resulted in 388 kg CO2eq using the enzyme-catalyzed process. In another
impacts of WCO biodiesel production in several studies such as Taba- study, Mendecka et al. [92] compared the conventional trans-
tabaei et al. [102] and Khang et al. [109]. In addition to providing re- esterification process carried out using sodium hydroxide, potassium
sults based on midpoints and endpoints, the IMPACT 2002+ method can hydroxide, and sulfuric acid catalysts and non-catalytic supercritical
also reflect the outcomes as a single score [156]. This feature and the methanol process from the CO2eq emissions viewpoint. The lowest CO2eq
consequent ease of interpretation are the most critical reasons the (234 kg/t WCO) was obtained for the sodium hydroxide, while sulfuric
IMPACT 2002+ has been frequently considered to scrutinize the envi- acid showed the highest value (813 kg/t WCO). In another study, the
ronmental burdens associated with WCO biodiesel production [95]. total carbon footprint of one ton of biodiesel derived from WCO was
Also, ReCiPe, as a state-of-the-art multi-issue method that comprises estimated at 553 kg CO2eq [100]. de Pontes Souza et al. [89] found that

11
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

each ton of WCO biodiesel released 2323.35 kg CO2eq. The trans- Most studies that have examined the relationship between WCO
esterification process contributed 54% of the total CO2eq, followed by biodiesel production and human health claim that the methanol used in
the combustion stage (46%). transesterification is the most crucial factor in causing damage to human
Table 4 tabulates a summary of the results reported in the published health. More specifically, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. [103] argued
literature on the kg CO2eq emissions of the WCO biodiesel production that the more favorable performance of neat diesel vs. biodiesel (B5) in
chain (regardless of the consumption phase) based on 1 ton of WCO the carcinogens impact category was attributed to the methanol used in
biodiesel (details related to case studies are listed in Table 3). It should the transesterification process of WCO biodiesel. They specified the ar-
be noted that a rigorous comparison of the quantities of kg CO2eq omatic hydrocarbons emissions into the air during methanol production
emissions provided in Table 4 is not likely to be attained due to sub- as the main reason. Aghbashlo et al. [99] also revealed that generating 1
stantial differences in the methodologies applied for production, reac- MJ biodiesel exergy content led to damages between 6.99 × 10−9 and
tion conditions, assumptions made, different databases, etc.; 3.67 × 10−8 disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to human health and
nevertheless, transesterification of WCO can be identified as an impor- that the methanol used had the most considerable contribution to that.
tant hotspot in WCO biodiesel production. Foteinis et al. [100] reported that in WCO biodiesel production, “human
Hence it could be concluded that the transesterification stage plays a toxicity” was mainly affected by methanol, followed by mazut, emis-
major role in the carbon footprint of WCO based biodiesel, and the focus sions caused by biodiesel distillation residue, and potassium methoxide.
should be placed on measures to reduce carbon emissions at this stage. Nevertheless, Morais et al. [101] argued that larger-scale productions
For example, Morais et al. [101] reported that compared with the could lead to further recovery and purification of methanol economi-
alkali-catalyzed process, the supercritical methanol process using pro- cally in both the acid-catalyzed and alkali processes and hence, reduce
pane as co-solvent reduced the GHG emissions by about five times. the associated burdens. In another study, Viornery-Portillo et al. [107]
Kralisch et al. [87] attributed lower GHG emissions of supercritical argued that compared to diesel production, WCO biodiesel production
processing than conventional methods, i.e., alkali-catalyzed and was less hazardous because methanol and sodium hydroxide were less
acid-catalyzed processing, to avoiding extensive pretreatment steps of toxic than the materials used in diesel production. Khang et al. [109]
WCO. It has been reported that the transesterification of WCO into also explained that photochemical ozone formation potential caused by
biodiesel and its consequent application as fossil fuel replacement WCO biodiesel production was significantly reduced compared to diesel.
reduced GHG emissions significantly. For example, Ortner et al. [7] In the transesterification process of WCO, the phosphoric acid used
highlighted that the substitution of fossil fuel with WCO biodiesel as one was found to have a critical role in the damage to ecosystem quality
of the best environmental options led to savings of 3089 kg CO2eq/t [96]. Aghbashlo et al. [99] attributed this damage to land occupation for
WCO. Another study also echoed the same finding that using WCO in the phosphoric acid production. Biodiesel production routes could also lead
biodiesel production process and diesel substitution was promising, to variations in impacts on ecosystem quality. To overcome this concern,
leading to savings of 2270–2860 kg CO2eq/t WCO [4]. Also, Moecke the application of green heterogeneous catalysts for WCO biodiesel
et al. [155] reported that when petroleum was substituted with biodiesel production could be proposed as these catalysts can be recycled and
(50%), the CO2 emissions from the collection stage of WCO biodiesel reused [158]. The enzyme-catalyzed process for WCO biodiesel pro-
were reduced by 25%. Diesel production leads to the release of signifi- duction could also lead to lower environmental damage due to the easy
cant amounts of GHG emissions, while WCO biodiesel production is a catalyst recovery and absence of the neutralization step [90]. Morais
less complex process and is thus responsible for considerably lower GHG et al. [101] revealed that compared to the alkali-catalyzed production
emissions [107]. process, the supercritical methanol production process could reduce the
damage to ecosystems by reducing “acidification” and “marine aquatic
ecotoxicity” by 7.5 and 8 times, respectively. Studies also confirm the
5.2. Environmental impacts of waste cooking biodiesel: main damage superiority of WCO biodiesel to diesel from the ecosystem damage
categories focus perspective. For example, Viornery-Portillo et al. [107] reported that the
“eutrophication” and “acidification” impact categories caused by WCO
Although the damage-oriented approach focuses on higher levels of biodiesel production were reduced by 39.24% and 38.73%, compared to
statistical uncertainty compared to the impact-oriented approach due to diesel, respectively. Caldeira et al. [97] claimed that although NOx
data gaps and assumptions, it is easier to comprehend by decision- and emission from WCO biodiesel was 20% higher than diesel, the produc-
policy-makers and the general public [100]. In general, the tion of the former had lower impacts on “terrestrial acidification".
damage-oriented approach reflects environmental burdens as damage to Although WCO, unlike vegetable oils, does not include cultivation
human health, ecosystems, and resources. and oil extraction, its production process consumes materials and en-
ergy, damaging primary resources. Aghbashlo et al. [99] calculated
Table 4 resource depletion per MJ WCO biodiesel exergy content in the range of
A summary of the results reported in the published literature on the carbon 1.66 × 10−1 to 7.11 × 10−1 MJ primary and showed that this damage
emissions of 1 ton of WCO biodiesel production. was mainly due to the resource consumption in the production of
Case-study Hotspots kg CO2eq/t methanol used in WCO biodiesel production. Morales-Mendoza et al.
WCO biodiesel [159] and Mohammadshirazi et al. [160] also previously emphasized
Khounani et al. Transesterification of WCO 130 the role of alcohol used in converting oil to biodiesel, quoting the
[108] varying amounts of fossil energy used in their production. Foteinis et al.
Peiró et al. [82] Transesterification of WCO 300 [100] also highlighted the critical effects of methanol, mazut, potassium
Fernandez et al. WCO collection 383
methoxide, and sulfuric acid production on resource depletion during
[90]
Foteinis et al. Transesterification of WCO 550 WCO transesterification. Tabatabaei et al. [102] demonstrated that the
[100] electricity consumed in WCO biodiesel production owing to natural gas
Dufour and Transesterification of WCO (Thermal energy 652 and crude oil consumed in electricity production led to damage to the
Iribarren [83] production) resource. Table 5 summarizes the results reported in the published
Tabatabaei et al. Transesterification of WCO (Electricity 843
[102] production)
literature on the MJ of energy consumed for 1 ton of WCO biodiesel
de Pontes Souza Transesterification of WCO (Ethanol 1254 production. As can be seen, the energy consumed per ton of WCO bio-
et al. [89] production and sodium hydroxide diesel produced varies significantly (from 6810 to 17417 MJ/t WCO
production) biodiesel) due to the differences in the respective studies. Nevertheless,
Zhao et al. [19] Transesterification of WCO 1383
there seems to be a consensus among the reported studies that the

12
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

Table 5 biodiesel production, studies paid less attention to the effects of land-use
A summary of the results reported in the published literature on the resource change on carbon emissions. Biodiesel production from WCO reduces
consumption for 1 ton of WCO biodiesel production. the competition between fuel and food over arable land, so less land
Case-study Hotspots MJ/t WCO would be used to cultivate first-generation oil feedstock [112]. In other
biodiesel words, the deforestation rate would decline, leading to reduced carbon
Khounani et al. Transesterification of WCO 6810 emissions [161]. In contrast, when WCO is used for biodiesel produc-
[108] tion, less marginal land would be cultivated for non-edible energy crops
Foteinis et al. [100] Transesterification of WCO 9745 production, undermining the capacity of such systems as carbon sinks
Dufour and Iribarren Transesterification of WCO (Methanol 12099
[162]. The above items reflect the importance of calculating carbon
[83] production)
Tabatabaei et al. Transesterification of WCO (Electricity 17000 emissions from land-use change to understand the environmental sus-
[102] consumption) tainability of WCO biodiesel vs. the first-generation biodiesel [163].
Zhao et al. [19] Transesterification of WCO 17417 Including these calculations could potentially weaken or strengthen the
environmental benefits of WCO biodiesel vs. the first-generation bio-
diesel, therefore, important [164].
transesterification process (methanol and energy consumption) would
Compared to the other types of biodiesel, the human toxicity level for
have the largest contribution to resource damage. Therefore, changes in
WCO biodiesel production was found lower [95]. For instance,
WCO biodiesel production methods can lead to different results. For
comparing WCO and Jatropha biodiesels, Sajid et a1 [95]. calculated an
example, Morais et al. [101] showed that compared to the
86.3% reduction in this midpoint for the former. They attributed their
alkali-catalyzed process, the supercritical methanol process decreased
observation to the lower cumulative toxicological risk associated with
“abiotic resource depletion” by about three times [101].
biodiesel production from WCO as feedstock than Jatropha oil. They
Compared with fossil fuels, Lombardi et al. [4] reported that per ton
also computed that using WCO as feedstock led to a 9.36% decrease in
WCO biodiesel production, a saving of 41.6–54.6 GJex in “cumulative
“respiratory inorganic” than Jatropha oil. In another study, WCO bio-
exergy consumption” could be achieved. Viornery-Portillo et al. [107]
diesel production resulted in 3.03 × 10−7 DALY/kg damage to human
showed a 39.34% reduction in abiotic depletion potential (fossil) for
health [108]. However, diverting WCO into biodiesel production avoi-
WCO biodiesel (blend B25) than ultra-low-sulfur diesel during the
ded 1.33 × 10−6 DALY/kg damage to human health associated with
generation of 1 kWh of electricity.
soybean oil production [108]. According to Foteinis et al. [100], the
human health damage caused by third-generation biodiesel was more
5.3. Comparing the environmental impacts of waste cooking biodiesel with than 1000 Pt per ton of biodiesel, while this value was about 20 Pt per
the other biodiesel generations ton of biodiesel for WCO biodiesel. They attributed this finding to the
immature technology of third-generation biodiesel [100].
From the environmental point of view, the production of virgin oil On a comparative basis, WCO biodiesel production usually leads to
biodiesel, due to high consumption of fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, tech- lower effects on ecosystem quality than biodiesel production from
nology, etc., leads to considerable emissions into the atmosphere and vegetable oils. Sajid et a1 [95]. argued that the land required to grow
substantial resources depletion. Accordingly, this section reviews LCA Jatropha seeds was the main reason causing ecosystem destruction.
studies that compared WCO biodiesel with virgin oil biodiesel. They also showed decreased “aquatic acidification” and “aquatic
Sajid et al. [95] claimed that using WCO as oil feedstock instead of eutrophication” when using WCO as oil feedstock compared to Jatropha
Jatropha oil in biodiesel production led to a 29.79% reduction in CO2 oil. The authors claimed that fertilizer application, sewage plant dis-
emissions and GWP. In a similar study, Khang et al. [109] reported that charges, and soil erosion containing nutrients caused by Jatropha seeds
the production of WCO biodiesel compared to Jatropha biodiesel production were the most important contributors to the ecosystem
resulted in a 69% reduction in GWP. They attributed these advantages to damage. Khang et al. [109] attributed the lower “acidification” and
the waste nature of WCO and that the CO2 emissions from the oil pro- “eutrophication” caused by the production of WCO biodiesel vs. Jatro-
duction stage were not included in the calculations. They also claimed pha oil biodiesel to the leakage of nitrate and phosphate into water re-
that fertilizer application in Jatropha farming released other gaseous sources during the cultivation of Jatropha seeds. Chung et al. [96]
emissions, such as N2O and NOx, that significantly contribute to global reported that since WCO was collected directly from WCO distribution
warming. Moreover, Iglesias et al. [98] highlighted that if WCO were centers and did not include the agriculture phase, hence, caused less
disposed of as waste, it would potentially lead to CO2 emissions, while damage to the environment. Liang et al. [94] claimed that WCO bio-
its conversion into biodiesel resulted in the opposite. Accordingly, the diesel could mitigate acidification and eutrophication damage cate-
impacts of WCO biodiesel production are much lower than biodiesel gories by 77% and 45%, respectively, compared with algae oil biodiesel.
production from different vegetable oils such as sunflower oil [98]. In They attributed their findings to the lack of nutrient intake in algae
another study, Liang et al. [94] reported that WCO biodiesel out- feedstock cultivation.
performed algae biodiesel in terms of CO2 emissions (78% reduction in According to Chung et al. [96], non-renewable energy utilization in
CO2 emissions). They also observed that WCO biodiesel could lead to an the WCO biodiesel production was lower than the Jatropha oil biodiesel
81% reduction in energy consumption compared with third-generation production. On the contrary, Sajid et a1 [95]. reported that
biodiesel [94]. Similarly, Foteinis et al. [100] found that WCO bio- non-renewable energy utilization in WCO biodiesel production was 11%
diesel could result in a 97% reduction in damage to resources compared higher than that of Jatropha oil. They attributed this observation to the
with algae biodiesel. higher energy requirements at the plant running on WCO. However,
WCO transesterification to biodiesel and glycerol production could they also emphasized that the application of Jatropha oil was not ad-
also lead to the avoided application of vegetable oils. Khounani et al. vantageous from the “mineral extraction consumption” perspective, and
[108] reported that producing 1 kg WCO biodiesel supplemented with a the use of WCO as feedstock led to a 36.92% reduction in “mineral
natural antioxidant was responsible for −2.33 kg CO2eq. They argued extraction”. Since some studies have emphasized that the production of
that this negative effect was caused by the avoided production of 0.9 kg WCO biodiesel consumes more energy than the production of biodiesel
soybean oil for biodiesel production, responsible for 2.46 kg CO2eq. from crops, low-energy methods should be used to compensate for this
Interestingly, Caldeira et al. [97] claimed that the use of glycerol derived shortcoming and achieve environmental sustainability. Hydrodynamic
from WCO and avoiding natural gas in heat generation (substitution) cavitation as an innovative technology can reduce the mass transfer rate
introduced a credit of 3.57 g CO2eq/MJ of biodiesel energy. between WCO and methanol and, consequently, energy consumption
Despite considerable attention to carbon emissions from WCO [165]. Nevertheless, this technology is still under development for

13
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

commercial applications, and future studies should assess its role in Supervision; Investigation. Vijai Kumar Gupta: Review & Editing;
enhancing the environmental sustainability of WCO biodiesel produc- Methodology. Young-Kwon Park: Investigation; Methodology. Alireza
tion. In addition, converting WCO into biodiesel by solar-assisted re- Fallahi: Visualization; Software. Alawi Sulaiman: Formal analysis,
actors could also be a promising approach to reduce resource depletion Methodology. Hassan Rahnama: Formal analysis, Methodology. Mei-
and fossil fuel consumption [166]. Also, Khounani et al. [108] explained sam Ranjbari: Data curation; Software. Mortaza Aghbashlo: Concep-
that by avoiding using soybean for biodiesel production, each kg of WCO tualization; Resources; Funding acquisition; Supervision; Writing –
biodiesel supplemented with additives saved 3.36 MJ on “primary en- review & editing. Wanxi Peng: Resources; Funding acquisition; Writing
ergy consumption". – review & editing. Meisam Tabatabaei: Conceptualization; Resources;
Funding acquisition; Supervision; Writing – review & editing.
6. Challenges, conclusions, and prospects
Declaration of competing interest
This review aims to comprehensively evaluate the application of the
LCA approach in scrutinizing the environmental burdens associated The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
with WCO biodiesel production. The principles, applications, advan- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
tages, and disadvantages of using the LCA method in WCO biodiesel the work reported in this paper.
production are also systematically outlined and critically discussed. In
general, some studies have ignored waste management following WCO Acknowledgments
biodiesel production, such as disposal of soap and other solid residues or
wastewater treatment. The lack of sufficient information related to solid The authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
waste and wastewater treatment, novel catalysts production, etc., is under International Partnership Research Grant (UMT/CRIM/2-2/2/23
problematic for current and under development technologies used in (23), Vot 55302) for supporting this joint project with Henan Agricul-
WCO biodiesel production. These issues could collectively lead to un- tural University under a Research Collaboration Agreement (RCA). This
certainty in the results obtained, undermining their value from the work is also supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia,
decision-making point of view. Monte Carlo analysis is one of the most under the Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE), Institute of
important tools which could be used to address these concerns. How- Tropical Aquaculture and Fisheries (AKUATROP) program (Vot. No.
ever, it suffers from disadvantages such as being time-consuming. Due to 56052, UMT/CRIM/2-2/5 Jilid 2 (11)). The manuscript is also sup-
substantial differences in the methodologies applied for production, ported by the Program for Innovative Research Team (in Science and
reaction conditions, assumptions made, different databases used, etc., Technology) in the University of Henan Province (No. 21IRTSTHN020)
quantities of environmental impacts such as kg CO2eq emissions and MJ and Central Plain Scholar Funding Project of Henan Province (No.
of energy consumed are in a very variable range and are practically 212101510005). M.T. and V.K.G. would like to acknowledge that this
incomparable. For example, kg CO2eq emissions for 1 ton of WCO bio- work has been done in part under the umbrella of the MoU between
diesel range between 130 and 1348. Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) and Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
In line with common waste management-oriented LCA methodolo- (UMT). The authors would also like to extend their sincere appreciation
gies, a zero-burden assumption is generally used to manage WCO and its to the University of Tehran and the Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam) for
conversion to biodiesel. When applying the zero-burden approach, their support through this project.
environmental impacts are not assigned to the WCO. However, Pradel
et al. [167] challenged the use of a zero-burden approach for the envi- References
ronmental footprints of products recovered from wastes. Based on the
concept of zero-burden assumption, the waste generated by a system has [1] Gunnepana IUK, Nawaratne SB. Determination of changes occurring in chemical
properties of fat repeatedly used for food frying. J Multidiscip Eng Sci Technol
no upstream environmental impacts, and when it enters a waste man- 2015;2:3521–5.
agement system, it is considered as an environmental burden-free input [2] Goh BHH, Chong CT, Ge Y, Ong HC, Ng J-H, Tian B, et al. Progress in utilisation
[168]. Nevertheless, when waste has energy recovery potential, it could of waste cooking oil for sustainable biodiesel and biojet fuel production. Energy
Convers Manag 2020;223:113296.
be used as a raw material in another system, i.e., the zero-burden [3] Ganesan K, Sukalingam K, Xu B. Impact of consumption and cooking manners of
assumption could be debatable. Pradel et al. [167] believe that an vegetable oils on cardiovascular diseases-A critical review. Trends Food Sci
environmental burden should be charged to a waste if it could be used as Technol 2018;71:132–54.
[4] Lombardi L, Mendecka B, Carnevale E. Comparative life cycle assessment of
a raw material of economic value. Accordingly, the zero-burden alternative strategies for energy recovery from used cooking oil. J Environ Manag
approach might not be valid in the case of WCO. If WCO were consid- 2018;216:235–45.
ered a zero-burden feedstock, its application instead of traditional raw [5] Khodadadi MR, Malpartida I, Tsang C-W, Lin CSK, Len C. Recent advances on the
catalytic conversion of waste cooking oil. Mol Catal 2020;494:111128.
materials would appear more interesting from the environmental
[6] Yaakob Z, Mohammad M, Alherbawi M, Alam Z, Sopian K. Overview of the
viewpoint. However, such a rough assumption might result in mis- production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;
conclusions. Therefore, future LCA studies on WCO biodiesel production 18:184–93.
[7] Ortner ME, Müller W, Schneider I, Bockreis A. Environmental assessment of three
should also focus on this challenge to determine whether the
different utilization paths of waste cooking oil from households. Resour Conserv
zero-burden assumption in WCO biodiesel studies would be a reliable Recycl 2016;106:59–67.
source of uncertainty. [8] Singh-Ackbarali D, Maharaj R, Mohamed N, Ramjattan-Harry V. Potential of used
Future research should also focus on how the environmental impacts frying oil in paving material: solution to environmental pollution problem.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 2017;24:12220–6.
of WCO biodiesel production systems can be reduced by employing [9] Nanda S, Rana R, Hunter HN, Fang Z, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA. Hydrothermal
innovative techniques such as hydrodynamic cavitation reactors, inte- catalytic processing of waste cooking oil for hydrogen-rich syngas production.
grating other renewable energy resources, e.g., solar energy, and using Chem Eng Sci 2019;195:935–45.
[10] Hingu SM, Gogate PR, Rathod VK. Synthesis of biodiesel from waste cooking oil
green catalysts in the production and combustion stages of WCO bio- using sonochemical reactors. Ultrason Sonochem 2010;17:827–32.
diesel. The environmental assessment of such innovations by LCA can [11] Abdel-Gawad S, Abdel-Shafy M. Pollution control of industrial wastewater from
also be regarded as one of the directions of future studies. soap and oil industries: a case study. Water Sci Technol 2002;46:77–82.
[12] Nemerow NL, Dasgupta A. Industrial and hazardous waste treatment. 1991. New
York, NY (United States).
Author statement [13] Thorpe J. Waste vegetable oil properties with usage and its impact on artisan soap
making. Brigham Young University; 2018.
Homa Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha: Writing – original draft. Abdul-
Sattar Nizami: Methodology; Validation. Soteris A. Kalogirou:

14
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

[14] Singhabhandhu A, Tezuka T. Prospective framework for collection and [44] Maddikeri GL, Pandit AB, Gogate PR. Intensification approaches for biodiesel
exploitation of waste cooking oil as feedstock for energy conversion. Energy synthesis from waste cooking oil: a review. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012;51:14610–28.
2010;35:1839–47. [45] Banerjee A, Chakraborty R. Parametric sensitivity in transesterification of waste
[15] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Khanali M, Demirbas A. cooking oil for biodiesel production-a review. Resour Conserv Recycl 2009;53:
A comprehensive review on the environmental impacts of diesel/biodiesel 490–7.
additives. Energy Convers Manag 2018;174:579–614. [46] Lam MK, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. Homogeneous, heterogeneous and enzymatic
[16] Sahafi SM, Ahmadibeni A, Talebi AF, Goli SAH, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M. Seed catalysis for transesterification of high free fatty acid oil (waste cooking oil) to
oils of Sisymbrium irio and Sisymbrium sophia as a potential non-edible feedstock biodiesel: a review. Biotechnol Adv 2010;28:500–18.
for biodiesel production. Biofuels 2021;12:103–11. [47] Mansir N, Teo SH, Rashid U, Saiman MI, Tan YP, Alsultan GA, et al. Modified
[17] Madadian E, Haelssig JB, Mohebbi M, Pegg M. From biorefinery landfills towards waste egg shell derived bifunctional catalyst for biodiesel production from high
a sustainable circular bioeconomy: a techno-economic and environmental FFA waste cooking oil. A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:3645–55.
analysis in Atlantic Canada. J Clean Prod 2021:126590. [48] Gaur A, Mishra S, Chowdhury S, Baredar P, Verma P. A review on factor affecting
[18] Mohan SV, Dahiya S, Amulya K, Katakojwala R, Vanitha TK. Can circular biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: an Indian perspective. Mater Today
bioeconomy be fueled by waste biorefineries-A closer look. Bioresour Technol Proc 2021;46:5594–600.
Rep 2019;7:100277. [49] Tan YH, Abdullah MO, Nolasco-Hipolito C. The potential of waste cooking oil-
[19] Zhao Y, Wang C, Zhang L, Chang Y, Hao Y. Converting waste cooking oil to based biodiesel using heterogeneous catalyst derived from various calcined
biodiesel in China: environmental impacts and economic feasibility. Renew eggshells coupled with an emulsification technique: a review on the emission
Sustain Energy Rev 2021;140:110661. reduction and engine performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:589–603.
[20] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M. Life cycle assessment of [50] de Araújo CDM, de Andrade CC, e Silva E de S, Dupas FA. Biodiesel production
bioenergy product systems: a critical review. E-Prime 2021;1:100015. from used cooking oil: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:445–52.
[21] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Li C, Chen X, Peng W, Aghbashlo M, Lam SS, et al. [51] Mazubert A, Poux M, Aubin J. Intensified processes for FAME production from
Managing the hazardous waste cooking oil by conversion into bioenergy through waste cooking oil: a technological review. Chem Eng J 2013;233:201–23.
the application of waste-derived green catalysts: a review. J Hazard Mater 2022; [52] Singh D, Sharma D, Soni SL, Inda CS, Sharma S, Sharma PK, et al.
424:127636. A comprehensive review of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil and its
[22] Zhang C, Cai W, Liu Z, Wei Y-M, Guan D, Li Z, et al. Five tips for China to realize use as fuel in compression ignition engines: 3rd generation cleaner feedstock.
its co-targets of climate mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). J Clean Prod 2021:127299.
Geogr Sustain 2020;1:245–9. [53] Khan HM, Ali CH, Iqbal T, Yasin S, Sulaiman M, Mahmood H, et al. Current
[23] Ghauri P, Strange R, Cooke FL. Research on international business: the new scenario and potential of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil in Pakistan:
realities. Int Bus Rev 2021;30:101794. an overview. Chin J Chem Eng 2019;27:2238–50.
[24] Hatzisymeon M, Kamenopoulos S, Tsoutsos T. Risk assessment of the life-cycle of [54] Kathirvel S, Layek A, Muthuraman S. Exploration of waste cooking oil methyl
the Used Cooking Oil-to-biodiesel supply chain. J Clean Prod 2019;217:836–43. esters (WCOME) as fuel in compression ignition engines: a critical review. Eng Sci
[25] Dutta S, Neto F, Coelho MC. Microalgae biofuels: a comparative study on techno- Technol Int J 2016;19:1018–26.
economic analysis & life-cycle assessment. Algal Res 2016;20:44–52. [55] Moazeni F, Chen Y-C, Zhang G. Enzymatic transesterification for biodiesel
[26] Aghbashlo M, Rosen MA. Exergoeconoenvironmental analysis as a new concept production from used cooking oil, a review. J Clean Prod 2019;216:117–28.
for developing thermodynamically, economically, and environmentally sound [56] Fonseca JM, Teleken JG, de Cinque Almeida V, da Silva C. Biodiesel from waste
energy conversion systems. J Clean Prod 2018;187:190–204. frying oils: methods of production and purification. Energy Convers Manag 2019;
[27] Kalaiarasi G, Velraj R, Swami MV. Experimental energy and exergy analysis of a 184:205–18.
flat plate solar air heater with a new design of integrated sensible heat storage. [57] Enweremadu CC, Mbarawa MM. Technical aspects of production and analysis of
Energy 2016;111:609–19. biodiesel from used cooking oil-A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:
[28] Mkwananzi T, Mandegari M, Görgens JF. Disturbance modelling through steady- 2205–24.
state value deviations: the determination of suitable energy indicators and [58] Enweremadu CC, Rutto HL. Combustion, emission and engine performance
parameters for energy consumption monitoring in a typical sugar mill. Energy characteristics of used cooking oil biodiesel-A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;176:211–23. 2010;14:2863–73.
[29] Soltanian S, Aghbashlo M, Almasi F, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Nizami A-S, [59] Tsoutsos TD, Tournaki S, Paraíba O, Kaminaris SD. The Used Cooking Oil-to-
Ok YS, et al. A critical review of the effects of pretreatment methods on the biodiesel chain in Europe assessment of best practices and environmental
exergetic aspects of lignocellulosic biofuels. Energy Convers Manag 2020;212: performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:74–83.
112792. [60] Math MC, Kumar SP, Chetty SV. Technologies for biodiesel production from used
[30] Amid S, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Karimi K, Nizami A-S, Rehan M, et al. cooking oil-A review. Energy Sustain Dev 2010;14:339–45.
Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental aspects of an industrial- [61] Bezergianni S, Dimitriadis A, Kalogianni A, Pilavachi PA. Hydrotreating of waste
scale molasses-based ethanol production plant. Energy Convers Manag 2021;227: cooking oil for biodiesel production. Part I: effect of temperature on product
113637. yields and heteroatom removal. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:6651–6.
[31] Raugei M, Rugani B, Benetto E, Ingwersen WW. Integrating emergy into LCA: [62] Tamošiūnas A, Gimžauskaitė D, Aikas M, Uscila R, Praspaliauskas M, Eimontas J.
potential added value and lingering obstacles. Ecol Model 2014;271:4–9. Gasification of waste cooking oil to syngas by thermal arc plasma. Energies 2019;
[32] Rajaeifar MA, Tabatabaei M, Abdi R, Latifi AM, Saberi F, Askari M, et al. 12:2612.
Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of using waste cooking [63] Lam SS, Liew RK, Jusoh A, Chong CT, Ani FN, Chase HA. Progress in waste oil to
oil-and poultry fat-based biodiesel blends in urban buses: a real-world operation sustainable energy, with emphasis on pyrolysis techniques. Renew Sustain Energy
condition study. Biofuel Res J 2017;4:638–53. Rev 2016;53:741–53.
[33] Ortiz FJG, Alonso-Fariñas B, Campanario FJ, Kruse A. Life cycle assessment of the [64] Cordero-Ravelo V, Schallenberg-Rodriguez J. Biodiesel production as a solution
Fischer-Tropsch biofuels production by supercritical water reforming of the bio- to waste cooking oil (WCO) disposal. Will any type of WCO do for a
oil aqueous phase. Energy 2020;210:118648. transesterification process? A quality assessment. J Environ Manag 2018;228:
[34] Saranya G, Ramachandra TV. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel from estuarine 117–29.
microalgae. Energy Convers Manag X 2020;8:100065. [65] Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Dehhaghi M, Panahi HKS, Mollahosseini A,
[35] Khoshnevisan B, Tabatabaei M, Tsapekos P, Rafiee S, Aghbashlo M, Lindeneg S, Hosseini M, et al. Reactor technologies for biodiesel production and processing: a
et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2019;74:239–303.
valorizing municipal solid waste to bioenergy, microbial protein, lactic and [66] Sinha S, Agarwal AK, Garg S. Biodiesel development from rice bran oil:
succinic acid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;117:109493. transesterification process optimization and fuel characterization. Energy
[36] Walker S, Rothman R. Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: Convers Manag 2008;49:1248–57.
a review. J Clean Prod 2020;261:121158. [67] Rabu RA, Janajreh I, Honnery D. Transesterification of waste cooking oil: process
[37] Rajaeifar MA, Hemayati SS, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Mahmoudi SB. A review optimization and conversion rate evaluation. Energy Convers Manag 2013;65:
on beet sugar industry with a focus on implementation of waste-to-energy 764–9.
strategy for power supply. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;103:423–42. [68] Aghbashlo M, Peng W, Tabatabaei M, Kalogirou SA, Soltanian S, Hosseinzadeh-
[38] Mayer F, Bhandari R, Gäth S. Critical review on life cycle assessment of Bandbafha H, et al. Machine learning technology in biodiesel research: a review.
conventional and innovative waste-to-energy technologies. Sci Total Environ Prog Energy Combust Sci 2021;85:100904.
2019;672:708–21. [69] Sadaf S, Iqbal J, Ullah I, Bhatti HN, Nouren S, Nisar J, et al. Biodiesel production
[39] Yang J, Fujiwara T, Geng Q. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel fuel production from waste cooking oil: an efficient technique to convert waste into biodiesel.
from waste cooking oil in Okayama City. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2016:1–11. Sustain Cities Soc 2018;41:220–6.
[40] Chamkalani A, Zendehboudi S, Rezaei N, Hawboldt K. A critical review on life [70] Demirbas A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Pol 2007;35:
cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: current challenges and future prospects. Renew 4661–70.
Sustain Energy Rev 2020;134:110143. [71] Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Khalife E, Shojaei TR, Dadak A. Exergoeconomic
[41] Kulkarni MG, Dalai AK. Waste cooking oil an economical source for biodiesel: a analysis of a DI diesel engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel (B5) emulsions
review. Ind Eng Chem Res 2006;45:2901–13. containing aqueous nano cerium oxide. Energy 2018;149:967–78.
[42] Talebian-Kiakalaieh A, Amin NAS, Mazaheri H. A review on novel processes of [72] Daud NM, Abdullah SRS, Hasan HA, Yaakob Z. Production of biodiesel and its
biodiesel production from waste cooking oil. Appl Energy 2013;104:683–710. wastewater treatment technologies: a review. Process Saf Environ Protect 2015;
[43] Gnanaprakasam A, Sivakumar VM, Surendhar A, Thirumarimurugan M, 94:487–508.
Kannadasan T. Recent strategy of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil
and process influencing parameters: a review. J Energy 2013;2013:1–10.

15
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

[73] Yushi Y, Ohta H, Shimojima M. Autophagy-mediated regulation of lipid [101] Morais S, Mata TM, Martins AA, Pinto GA, Costa CAV. Simulation and life cycle
metabolism and its impact on the growth in algae and seed plants. Front Plant Sci assessment of process design alternatives for biodiesel production from waste
2019;10:709. vegetable oils. J Clean Prod 2010;18:1251–9.
[74] Prasad S, Singh A, Korres NE, Rathore D, Sevda S, Pant D. Sustainable utilization [102] Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Najafi B, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Ardabili SF,
of crop residues for energy generation: a life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective. Akbarian E, et al. Environmental impact assessment of the mechanical shaft work
Bioresour Technol 2020:122964. produced in a diesel engine running on diesel/biodiesel blends containing
[75] Andreo-Martínez P, Ortiz-Martínez VM, García-Martínez N, de los Ríos AP, glycerol-derived triacetin. J Clean Prod 2019;223:466–86.
Hernández-Fernández FJ, Quesada-Medina J. Production of biodiesel under [103] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Khanali M, Khalife E,
supercritical conditions: state of the art and bibliometric analysis. Appl Energy Roodbar Shojaei T, et al. Consolidating emission indices of a diesel engine
2020;264:114753. powered by carbon nanoparticle-doped diesel/biodiesel emulsion fuels using life
[76] Amid S, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Hajiahmad A, Najafi B, Ghaziaskar HS, et al. cycle assessment framework. Fuel 2020;267:117296.
Effects of waste-derived ethylene glycol diacetate as a novel oxygenated additive [104] Caldeira C, Quinteiro P, Castanheira E, Boulay A-M, Dias AC, Arroja L, et al.
on performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel/ Water footprint profile of crop-based vegetable oils and waste cooking oil:
biodiesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2020;203:112245. comparing two water scarcity footprint methods. J Clean Prod 2018;195:
[77] Ranjbari M, Esfandabadi ZS, Zanetti MC, Scagnelli SD, Siebers P-O, Aghbashlo M, 1190–202.
et al. Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: a systematic review [105] Caldeira C, Freire F, Olivetti EA, Kirchain R, Dias LC. Analysis of cost-
and future research agenda for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 2021: environmental trade-offs in biodiesel production incorporating waste feedstocks:
126660. a multi-objective programming approach. J Clean Prod 2019;216:64–73.
[78] Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. [106] Yano J, Aoki T, Nakamura K, Yamada K, Sakai S. Life cycle assessment of
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of hydrogenated biodiesel production from waste cooking oil using the catalytic
studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. cracking and hydrogenation method. Waste Manag 2015;38:409–23.
J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1–34. [107] Viornery-Portillo EA, Bravo-Díaz B, Mena-Cervantes VY. Life cycle assessment
[79] Lanzuela NE, Sanchís FJR, Señer AR, Polo GC, Vidal AP, Pellicer NS. Uncertainty and emission analysis of waste cooking oil biodiesel blend and fossil diesel used in
analysis in the environmental assessment of an integrated management system for a power generator. Fuel 2020;281:118739.
restaurant and catering waste in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2015;20:244–62. [108] Khounani Z, Hosseinzadeh Bandbafhab H, Nizami A-S, Sulaiman A, Goli SAH,
[80] Caldeira C, Queirós J, Freire F. Biodiesel from waste cooking oils in Portugal: Tavassoli-Kafrani E, et al. Unlocking the potential of walnut husk extract in the
alternative collection systems. Waste Biomass Valor 2015;6:771–9. production of waste cooking oil-based biodiesel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;
[81] Alam SS, Churkunti PR, Depcik C. Comparison of waste plastic fuel, waste 119:109588.
cooking oil biodiesel, and ultra-low sulfur diesel using a Well-to-Exhaust [109] Khang DS, Tan RR, Uy OM, Promentilla MAB, Tuan PD, Abe N, et al. Design of
framework. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2021:1–20. experiments for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: the case of
[82] Peiró LT, Lombardi L, Méndez GV, i Durany XG. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and biodiesel in Vietnam. Resour Conserv Recycl 2017;119:12–23.
exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA) of the production of biodiesel from used [110] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Rafiee S, Mohammadi P, Ghobadian B, Lam SS,
cooking oil (UCO). Energy 2010;35:889–93. Tabatabaei M, et al. Exergetic, economic, and environmental life cycle assessment
[83] Dufour J, Iribarren D. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from free fatty analyses of a heavy-duty tractor diesel engine fueled with diesel-biodiesel-
acid-rich wastes. Renew Energy 2012;38:155–62. bioethanol blends. Energy Convers Manag 2021;241:114300.
[84] Yang Y, Fu T, Bao W, Xie GH. Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas and PM 2.5 [111] ISO. 14040 international standard. Environmental management–life cycle
emissions from restaurant waste oil used for biodiesel production in China. assessment–principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International
BioEnergy Res 2017;10:199–207. Organisation for Standardization; 2006.
[85] Rajaeifar MA, Abdi R, Tabatabaei M. Expanded polystyrene waste application for [112] Chua CBH, Lee HM, Low JSC. Life cycle emissions and energy study of biodiesel
improving biodiesel environmental performance parameters from life cycle derived from waste cooking oil and diesel in Singapore. Int J Life Cycle Assess
assessment point of view. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;74:278–98. 2010;15:417–23.
[86] Varanda MG, Pinto G, Martins F. Life cycle analysis of biodiesel production. Fuel [113] Tong H, Shen Y, Zhang J, Wang CH, Ge TS, Tong YW. A comparative life cycle
Process Technol 2011;92:1087–94. assessment on four waste-to-energy scenarios for food waste generated in eateries.
[87] Kralisch D, Staffel C, Ott D, Bensaid S, Saracco G, Bellantoni P, et al. Process Appl Energy 2018;225:1143–57.
design accompanying life cycle management and risk analysis as a decision [114] Kesieme U, Pazouki K, Murphy A, Chrysanthou A. Attributional life cycle
support tool for sustainable biodiesel production. Green Chem 2013;15:463–77. assessment of biofuels for shipping: addressing alternative geographical locations
[88] Acquaye AA, Sherwen T, Genovese A, Kuylenstierna J, Koh SCL, McQueen- and cultivation systems. J Environ Manag 2019;235:96–104.
Mason S. Biofuels and their potential to aid the UK towards achieving emissions [115] Rehl T, Lansche J, Müller J. Life cycle assessment of energy generation from
reduction policy targets. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5414–22. biogas-Attributional vs. consequential approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
[89] de Pontes Souza D, Mendonça FM, Alves Nunes KR, Valle R. Environmental and 2012;16:3766–75.
socioeconomic analysis of producing biodiesel from used cooking oil in Rio de [116] Shirzad M, Kazemi Shariat Panahi H, Dashti B, Rajaeifar B, Mohammad Ali
Janeiro: the case of the Copacabana district. J Ind Ecol 2012;16:655–64. Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M. A comprehensive review on electricity generation
[90] Peñarrubia Fernandez IA, Liu DH, Zhao J. LCA studies comparing alkaline and and GHG emission reduction potentials through anaerobic digestion of
immobilized enzyme catalyst processes for biodiesel production under Brazilian agricultural and livestock/slaughterhouse wastes in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy
conditions. Resour Conserv Recycl 2017;119:117–27. Rev 2019;111:571–94.
[91] Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH, Garivait S. Greenhouse gas emissions from production [117] Buonocore E, Mellino S, De Angelis G, Liu G, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment
and use of used cooking oil methyl ester as transport fuel in Thailand. J Clean indicators of urban wastewater and sewage sludge treatment. Ecol Indicat 2018;
Prod 2009;17:873–6. 94:13–23.
[92] Mendecka B, Lombardi L, Kozio J. Probabilistic multi-criteria analysis for [118] Curran MA. Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its
evaluation of biodiesel production technologies from used cooking oil. Renew application to sustainability. Curr Opin Chem Eng 2013;2:273–7.
Energy 2020;147:2542–53. [119] Turconi R, Boldrin A, Astrup T. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity
[93] Lanzuela NE, Ribal J, Clemente G, Rodrigo A, Pascual A, Sanjuán N. Uncertainty generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew Sustain
analysis in the financial assessment of an integrated management system for Energy Rev 2013;28:555–65.
restaurant and catering waste in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2015;20:1491–510. [120] Oldfield TL, White E, Holden NM. The implications of stakeholder perspective for
[94] Liang S, Xu M, Zhang T. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production in China. LCA of wasted food and green waste. J Clean Prod 2018;170:1554–64.
Bioresour Technol 2013;129:72–7. [121] Pauline JMN, Sivaramakrishnan R, Pugazhendhi A, Anbarasan T, Achary A.
[95] Sajid Z, Khan F, Zhang Y. Process simulation and life cycle analysis of biodiesel Transesterification kinetics of waste cooking oil and its diesel engine
production. Renew Energy 2016;85:945–52. performance. Fuel 2021;285:119108.
[96] Chung ZL, Tan YH, San Chan Y, Kansedo J, Mubarak NM, Ghasemi M, et al. Life [122] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Khalife E, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Khanali M,
cycle assessment of waste cooking oil for biodiesel production using waste Mohammadi P, et al. Effects of aqueous carbon nanoparticles as a novel
chicken eggshell derived CaO as catalyst via transesterification. Biocatal Agric nanoadditive in water-emulsified diesel/biodiesel blends on performance and
Biotechnol 2019;21:101317. emissions parameters of a diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag 2019;196:
[97] Caldeira C, Queirós J, Noshadravan A, Freire F. Incorporating uncertainty in the 1153–66.
life cycle assessment of biodiesel from waste cooking oil addressing different [123] Bieda B, Skalna I, Gawe B, Grzesik K, Henclik A, Sala D. Life cycle inventory
collection systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 2016;112:83–92. processes of the integrated steel plant (ISP) in Krakow, Poland-continuous casting
[98] Iglesias L, Laca A, Herrero M, Díaz M. A life cycle assessment comparison between of steel (CCS): a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2018;23:1274–85.
centralized and decentralized biodiesel production from raw sunflower oil and [124] Hjaila K, Baccar R, Sarrà M, Gasol CM, Blánquez P. Environmental impact
waste cooking oils. J Clean Prod 2012;37:162–71. associated with activated carbon preparation from olive-waste cake via life cycle
[99] Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Amid S, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, assessment. J Environ Manag 2013;130:242–7.
Khoshnevisan B, Kianian G. Life cycle assessment analysis of an ultrasound- [125] Katakojwala R, Mohan SV. A critical view on the environmental sustainability of
assisted system converting waste cooking oil into biodiesel. Renew Energy 2020; biorefinery systems. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 2020:100392.
151:1352–64. [126] Chowdhury H, Loganathan B. Third-generation biofuels from microalgae: a
[100] Foteinis S, Chatzisymeon E, Litinas A, Tsoutsos T. Used-cooking-oil biodiesel: life review. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 2019;20:39–44.
cycle assessment and comparison with first-and third-generation biofuel. Renew [127] Islam S, Ponnambalam SG, Lam HL. Review on life cycle inventory: methods,
Energy 2020;153:588–600. examples and applications. J Clean Prod 2016;136:266–78.

16
H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161 (2022) 112411

[128] Landi D, Consolini A, Germani M, Favi C. Comparative life cycle assessment of [149] Cherubini E, Franco D, Zanghelini GM, Soares SR. Uncertainty in LCA case study
electric and gas ovens in the Italian context: an environmental and technical due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods. Int J Life
evaluation. J Clean Prod 2019;221:189–201. Cycle Assess 2018;23:2055–70.
[129] Wang T, Lee I-S, Kendall A, Harvey J, Lee E-B, Kim C. Life cycle energy [150] Roos A, Ahlgren S. Consequential life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems-a
consumption and GHG emission from pavement rehabilitation with different literature review. J Clean Prod 2018;189:358–73.
rolling resistance. J Clean Prod 2012;33:86–96. [151] Eguchi S, Kagawa S, Okamoto S. Environmental and economic performance of a
[130] Lior N. Sustainability as the quantitative norm for water desalination impacts. biodiesel plant using waste cooking oil. J Clean Prod 2015;101:245–50.
Desalination 2017;401:99–111. [152] Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ. Introducing life cycle impact assessment. Life
[131] Crawford RH. Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. cycle impact Assess. Springer; 2015. p. 1–16.
J Environ Manag 2008;88:496–506. [153] Rosenbaum RK, Hauschild MZ, Boulay A-M, Fantke P, Laurent A, Núñez M, et al.
[132] Dey A, Yodo N. Robust response surface optimization under model parameter Life cycle impact assessment. Life cycle Assess. Springer; 2018. p. 167–270.
uncertainty. In: IIE annu. Conf. Proc. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers [154] Soares SR, Toffoletto L, Deschênes L. Development of weighting factors in the
(IISE); 2021. p. 908–13. context of LCIA. J Clean Prod 2006;14:649–60.
[133] Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L. Evaluating uncertainty in [155] Moecke EHS, Feller R, dos Santos HA, de Medeiros Machado M, Cubas ALV, de
environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation Aguiar Dutra AR, et al. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil for use as fuel
options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37:2600–8. in artisanal fishing boats: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects.
[134] Heijungs R. On the number of Monte Carlo runs in comparative probabilistic LCA. J Clean Prod 2016;135:679–88.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 2020;25:394–402. [156] Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, et al. Impact 2002
[135] Kohler N, Bodin O. Dealing with sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in integrated +: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2003;
building LCA model: dealing with uncertainty in life cyle analysis of building 8:324–30.
model by using experiment design methods. 2003. [157] Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, et al.
[136] Naderpour H, Rafiean AH, Fakharian P. Compressive strength prediction of ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and
environmentally friendly concrete using artificial neural networks. J Build Eng endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:138–47.
2018;16:213–9. [158] Zavarize DG, Braun H, de Oliveira JD. Methanolysis of low-FFA waste cooking oil
[137] Heijungs R. A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner with novel carbon-based heterogeneous acid catalyst derived from Amazon açaí
products. Ecol Econ 1994;10:69–81. berry seeds. Renew Energy 2021;171:621–34.
[138] Chen R, Qin Z, Han J, Wang M, Taheripour F, Tyner W, et al. Life cycle energy and [159] Morales Mendoza LF, Azzaro Pantel C, Belaud JP, Ouattara A. Coupling life cycle
greenhouse gas emission effects of biodiesel in the United States with induced assessment with process simulation for ecodesign of chemical processes. Environ
land use change impacts. Bioresour Technol 2018;251:249–58. Prog Sustain Energy 2018;37:777–96.
[139] Sills DL, Van Doren LG, Beal C, Raynor E. The effect of functional unit and co- [160] Mohammadshirazi A, Akram A, Rafiee S, Kalhor EB. Energy and cost analyses of
product handling methods on life cycle assessment of an algal biorefinery. Algal biodiesel production from waste cooking oil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:
Res 2020;46:101770. 44–9.
[140] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Sulaiman A, [161] Agarwal AK, Gupta JG, Dhar A. Potential and challenges for large-scale
Ghassemi A. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) analysis of algal fuels. New York, NY: application of biodiesel in automotive sector. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2017;61:
Biofuels from Algae, Humana; 2019. p. 121–51. 113–49.
[141] Soam S, Kapoor M, Kumar R, Borjesson P, Gupta RP, Tuli DK. Global warming [162] Fernando AL, Costa J, Barbosa B, Monti A, Rettenmaier N. Environmental impact
potential and energy analysis of second generation ethanol production from rice assessment of perennial crops cultivation on marginal soils in the Mediterranean
straw in India. Appl Energy 2016;184:353–64. Region. Biomass Bioenergy 2018;111:174–86.
[142] Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Hoang AT, Yang Y, [163] Cherubini F, Strømman AH. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of
Jouzani GS. Life cycle analysis for biodiesel production from oleaginous fungi. the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:437–51.
Fungi fuel biotechnol. Springer; 2020. p. 199–225. [164] Escobar N, Ribal J, Clemente G, Sanjuán N. Consequential LCA of two alternative
[143] Piastrellini R, Arena AP, Civit B. Energy life-cycle analysis of soybean biodiesel: systems for biodiesel consumption in Spain, considering uncertainty. J Clean Prod
effects of tillage and water management. Energy 2017;126:13–20. 2014;79:61–73.
[144] Wiloso EI, Heijungs R, De Snoo GR. LCA of second generation bioethanol: a [165] Innocenzi V, Prisciandaro M. Technical feasibility of biodiesel production from
review and some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice. Renew Sustain virgin oil and waste cooking oil: comparison between traditional and innovative
Energy Rev 2012;16:5295–308. process based on hydrodynamic cavitation. Waste Manag 2021;122:15–25.
[145] Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Rastegari H, Ghaziaskar HS. Exergy-based [166] Sivarethinamohan S, Hanumanthu JR, Gaddam K, Ravindiran G, Alagumalai A.
sustainability analysis of acetins synthesis through continuous esterification of Towards sustainable biodiesel production by solar intensification of waste
glycerol in acetic acid using Amberlyst® 36 as catalyst. J Clean Prod 2018;183: cooking oil and engine parameter assessment studies. Sci Total Environ 2021:
1265–75. 150236.
[146] Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Jazini H, Ghaziaskar HS. Exergoeconomic and [167] Pradel M, Aissani L, Villot J, Baudez J, Laforest V. From waste to added value
exergoenvironmental co-optimization of continuous fuel additives (acetins) product: towards a paradigm shift in life cycle assessment applied to wastewater
synthesis from glycerol esterification with acetic acid using Amberlyst 36 catalyst. sludge-a review. J Clean Prod 2016;131:60–75.
Energy Convers Manag 2018;165:183–94. [168] Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G. What life-cycle
[147] Tan HW, Aziz ARA, Aroua MK. Glycerol production and its applications as a raw assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
material: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:118–27. Manag 2007;27:989–96.
[148] Thamsiriroj T, Murphy JD. A critical review of the applicability of biodiesel and
grass biomethane as biofuels to satisfy both biofuel targets and sustainability
criteria. Appl Energy 2011;88:1008–19.

17