Techno-Economic Analysis of an Integrated Bio-Refinery for the Production of Biofuels and Value-Added Chemicals from Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches

Abstract

Lignocellulose-rich empty fruit bunches (EFBs) have high potential as feedstock for second-generation biofuel and biochemical production without compromising food security. Nevertheless, the major challenge of valorizing lignocellulose-rich EFB is its high pretreatment cost. In this study, the preliminary techno-economic feasibility of expanding an existing pellet production plant into an integrated bio-refinery plant to produce xylitol and bioethanol was investigated as a strategy to diversify the high production cost and leverage the high selling price of biofuel and biochemicals. The EFB feedstock was split into a pellet production stream and a xylitol and bioethanol production stream. Different economic performance metrics were used to compare the profitability at different splitting ratios of xylitol and bioethanol to pellet production. The analysis showed that an EFB splitting ratio below 40% for pellet production was economically feasible. A sensitivity analysis showed that xylitol price had the most significant impact on the economic performance metrics. Another case study on the coproduction of pellet and xylitol versus that of pellet and bioethanol concluded that cellulosic bioethanol production is yet to be market-ready, requiring a minimum selling price above the current market price to be feasible at 16% of the minimum acceptable return rate.

Full text

Citation: Lim, K.L.; Wong, W.Y.;
James Rubinsin, N.; Loh, S.K.; Lim,
M.T. Techno-Economic Analysis of an
Integrated Bio-Refinery for the
Production of Biofuels and
Value-Added Chemicals from Oil
Palm Empty Fruit Bunches. Processes
2022,10, 1965. https://doi.org/
10.3390/pr10101965
Academic Editors: Shicheng Zhang,
Javier Remon, Gang Luo,
Abdul-Sattar Nizami,
Andrzej Bialowiec and Yan Shi
Received: 31 July 2022
Accepted: 20 September 2022
Published: 29 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
processes
Communication
Techno-Economic Analysis of an Integrated Bio-Refinery for the
Production of Biofuels and Value-Added Chemicals from Oil
Palm Empty Fruit Bunches
Kean Long Lim 1, * , Wai Yin Wong 1, Nowilin James Rubinsin 1, Soh Kheang Loh 2and Mook Tzeng Lim 3,4
1Fuel Cell Institute, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Energy and Environment Unit, Engineering and Processing Division, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, 6, Persiaran
Institusi, Bandar Baru Bangi, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
3TNB Research Sdn. Bhd., Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
4Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Quantity Surveying, INTI International
University, Nilai 71800, Negri Sembilan, Malaysia
*Correspondence: kllim@ukm.edu.my; Tel.: +60-3-8911-8494; Fax: +60-3-8911-8530
Abstract:
Lignocellulose-rich empty fruit bunches (EFBs) have high potential as feedstock for second-
generation biofuel and biochemical production without compromising food security. Nevertheless,
the major challenge of valorizing lignocellulose-rich EFB is its high pretreatment cost. In this study,
the preliminary techno-economic feasibility of expanding an existing pellet production plant into
an integrated bio-refinery plant to produce xylitol and bioethanol was investigated as a strategy to
diversify the high production cost and leverage the high selling price of biofuel and biochemicals. The
EFB feedstock was split into a pellet production stream and a xylitol and bioethanol production stream.
Different economic performance metrics were used to compare the profitability at different splitting
ratios of xylitol and bioethanol to pellet production. The analysis showed that an EFB splitting ratio
below 40% for pellet production was economically feasible. A sensitivity analysis showed that xylitol
price had the most significant impact on the economic performance metrics. Another case study on
the coproduction of pellet and xylitol versus that of pellet and bioethanol concluded that cellulosic
bioethanol production is yet to be market-ready, requiring a minimum selling price above the current
market price to be feasible at 16% of the minimum acceptable return rate.
Keywords: empty fruit bunches; pellet; xylitol; bioethanol; integrated process
1. Introduction
Malaysia is currently the world’s second-largest palm oil producer after Indonesia.
As in 2019, 5.90 Mha of land in Malaysia is covered with oil palms, 46.9% of which is in
peninsular Malaysia, and the remaining 26.1% and 26.9% are in Sabah and Sarawak, re-
spectively [
1
]. With the rapid expansion of the palm oil industry in Malaysia, sustainability
issues related to oil palm have accelerated in recent years [
2
], especially environmental
issues associated with the palm oil industry. These issues have increased the urgency for the
industry to find a balance between environmental and economic sustainability. One of the
many options is to convert the excessive biomass leftover from the palm oil mills, especially
the empty fruit bunches (EFBs), into value-added biomass and generate revenue from the
waste [
3
]. EFBs are the remaining parts after oil palm fruitlets are stripped from fresh
fruit bunches (FFBs) [4,5]. According to Hamzah et al. [6], the amount of EFB produced is
estimated to be 22% of the FFB (in wet weight), which is the largest proportion of oil palm
plantation solid waste. Based on the FFB yield data from MPOB (2019) [
7
], it is estimated
that the average total amount of EFB produced from 2017 to 2019 is 22.42 million tons
annually. EFB is considered a waste that needs to be continuously removed to avoid piling
at the site because it can lead to methane emissions that contribute to air pollution and
Processes 2022,10, 1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10101965 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2022,10, 1965 2 of 20
negative health impacts [
8
,
9
]. Conventionally, EFB is used as a mulch or organic fertilizer
in oil palm plantations because of its high alkali content or fuel in the boiler to reduce diesel
consumption [
10
,
11
]. However, feeding EFB directly into the boiler without removing its al-
kali content contributes to slagging and fouling, which will eventually reduce the operation
efficiency of the boiler [
12
]. In addition, EFB is a lignocellulosic material that can potentially
be utilized to produce high-value-added products such as biofuel, biochemical materials,
industrial sugar, and biofertilizer. If the potential is unlocked and fully exploited, the palm
oil industry will be one step closer to sustainable development and circular economy [13].
There were several studies related to the valorization of EFB to fuel (pellets, briquettes,
bioethanol) and value-added products (charcoal, long fibers, biochemical) as a promising
and sustainable alternative to the replacement of fossil fuels and chemical products [
14
–
49
].
The lignocellulose composition of EFB consists of 36–43% cellulose, 15–25% hemicellulose,
and 22–34% lignin [
20
], as well as approximately 4% ash or mineral content [
21
] that
contains compounds such as K
2
O, P
2
O
5
and SiO
2
, which can be a suitable source for pellet,
biofertilizer, xylitol and bioethanol production. Instead of burning EFB as a fuel directly,
processing EFB into pellets by increasing its lignin content and removing its mineral content
improves the calorific value [
22
,
23
]. Renewable solid fuel for power generation is in high
demand in Europe, Japan, Korea, and China. Currently, an industrial establishment in
Malaysia has the capacity to produce 1000 to 3000 tons of pellets monthly [
24
], but the
average annual global growth of pellet demand is of 960,000 tons/year [
25
–
27
]. This huge
supply–demand mismatch offers an opportunity for EFB pellets to fill in the supply gap
because of their cost competitiveness, low moisture content, high calorific value, and low
smoke and fume generation during combustion [
28
]. Cellulosic bioethanol is considered a
second-generation (2G) biofuel produced from the cellulose component of EFB. 2G biofuel
has gained considerable demand because it offers an alternative to minimize possible
conflicts between fuel and food security [
29
]. However, cellulosic bioethanol is inherently
more challenging to produce than sugar- or starch-based bioethanol and more costly than
fossil-based ethanol. Hence, it is necessary to produce valuable biochemicals such as
xylitol simultaneously with 2G cellulosic bioethanol to improve the overall feasibility of
the production process [
30
]. EFB with a substantially high amount of polymeric xylan
(hemicellulose) is a suitable xylose source for xylitol production. Xylitol is a highly sought
value-added product in the food and pharmaceutical industries. It can only be extracted
from plant biomass [
31
]. The global demand for xylitol is approximately 125,000 tons,
with an average market price of 5000 to 20,000 USD/ton, and xylitol is mostly used as
a substitute for sugar because of its lower caloric content but with a similar sweetening
power [32].
Although the demand for these products is high worldwide, the recalcitrant structure
of lignocellulose in EFB is the bottleneck to yield high amounts of bioproducts [
33
,
34
].
Therefore, multiple pretreatment steps are required to fractionate the complex structure,
increase the EFB porosity, reduce cellulose’s crystallinity, solubilize hemicellulose, and mod-
ify the lignin structure [
35
–
37
]. These pretreatment methods include physical, biological,
and chemical processes to condition the EFB before feeding to the pellet and biochemi-
cal production. The physical method aims to reduce the particle size and crystallinity of
biomass by milling, grinding, or chipping. Further processing of biomass is easier and more
effective. Biological methods use microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria to degrade
lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. Biological methods are usually cost-effective, have low
energy requirements, and are environmentally friendly. No chemical waste is generated,
but the degradation process is slow. Either acid or alkali is often used to treat biomass
in chemical treatment [
38
]. A combination of physical and chemical methods has also
been used to reduce the recalcitrance of lignocellulosic biomass. The most commonly used
physicochemical methods are liquid hot water, steam explosion, microwave pretreatment,
and ozonolysis treatment [
39
–
42
]. Most of these physicochemical methods are conducted
at a high temperature and pressure to accelerate biomass degradation. Still, these methods
are less efficient because they can cause severe degradation of the EFB components [43].

Processes 2022,10, 1965 3 of 20
There were three main processes in producing EFB pellets: moisture removal, compo-
sition adjustment (lignin increment and ash reduction), and pellet densification. Removal
of high alkali content in EFB, such as K and Na, in the form of ash, is a crucial step to
produce premium-grade pellets for boiler applications. The ash deposition of EFB can
be removed with washing treatment. This washing process’s effluent contains essential
nutrients for plant growth and can be a suitable source of N-P-K fertilizers [
44
]. In addition,
EFB contains highly hydrophilic hemicellulose and has approximately 67% moisture. It
requires a high intensity of drying and hemicellulose removal to be used as fuel in the
boilers. The removal of hemicellulose content increases the lignin percentage, which has a
high calorific or heating value [
23
,
45
]. Pretreatment processes such as torrefaction, steam
explosion, and hydrothermal treatment are commercial thermal treatment techniques to
improve the calorific value [
46
]. Torrefaction is a heat treatment process to carbonize EFB
and increase its C/O ratios [
47
]. Torrefaction also reduces the moisture content of EFB.
It reduces the mass by almost half, enhancing the transportability and prolonging the
storage duration of pellets [
48
]. Steam explosion uses high-temperature saturated steam to
penetrate through the cell wall structure at high pressure and solubilize hemicellulose [
41
].
Upon instantaneous controlled pressure drop, the cell wall expands adiabatically and
undergoes explosive decompression, making cellulose more accessible [
23
]. Hydrothermal
treatment (HTT), also known as wet torrefaction, is another pretreatment process suitable
for biomass with high moisture content, with a typical treatment temperature of 150 to
350 C [
49
]. Both Ahda et al. [
50
] and Novianti et al. [
45
] have shown that the HTT process
upgrades the EFB into more stable, hydrophobic, and more lignin-containing feedstock
with lower mineral content. While pretreatment of EFB in pellet production improves the
fiber’s quality, the loose EFB fiber is usually bulky and low in density. The densification
process can increase the energy potential of the biomass. There are two densification meth-
ods: screw press and piston press. Pellets produced through this process can be used in
direct combustion for energy generation [28].
In a coproduction of bioethanol and xylitol, EFB is first chemically pretreated with
dilute acid or alkali to extract cellulose from EFB [
51
] to produce hydrolyzed hemicellulose
or xylose [
20
]. Acid hydrolysis pretreatment is commonly used because it can hydrolyze
hemicellulose, which has a lower degree of polymerization and amorphous structure,
much faster than cellulose. The pretreatment process was able to increase the cellulose
content from 41% to 72% [
52
–
55
]. The most commonly used acid is diluted sulfuric acid at
a concentration below 4% (w/w) [
56
]. Other mineral acids, such as hydrochloric, nitric, and
phosphoric acids, can be used, but sulfuric acid results in an efficient process, lower cost,
and shorter reaction time [57].
For bioethanol production, the cellulose-rich hydrolysate undergoes subsequent hy-
drolysis in either biological method through enzymatic hydrolysis or chemical method
through acid hydrolysis. The enzymatic hydrolysis method is preferable because it is
cost-effective and produces a higher sugar content than acid hydrolysis [
58
,
59
]. Enzymatic
hydrolysis degrades cellulose into simple sugar by cellulolytic enzymes, which require
an optimal temperature between 45 and 55
◦
C and a pH range of 4–5 [
36
]. Ghazali and
Makhtar [
60
] used cellulase enzymes produced from the fungus Trichoderma reesei to in-
crease glucose yield. The enzymes produced a constant maximum yield of 2.5 g/L at an
enzyme to substrate ratio of 0.05 (0.5 g enzyme/10 g EFB) at 50
◦
C and pH 5. Zhai et al. [
51
]
reported that the sugar yield was improved from 30.5% to 66.9% by increasing the enzyme
dose from 10 to 60 FPU/g EFB at 50
◦
C and pH 4.8. Both studies have indicated that optimal
enzymatic hydrolysis conditions, such as temperature, pH, and substrate concentration, are
essential in improving sugar yield [
61
]. Other fungi can be used to produce enzymes, but
Trichoderma reesei is the most commonly used fungus in industrial enzymatic processes [
62
].
The sugar from enzymatic hydrolysis is fermented with yeast to produce bioethanol. The
most frequently used yeast is Saccharomyces cerevisiae because it can provide a high ethanol
yield [
59
,
63
]. Sugar can be fermented into ethanol by two processes: separate hydrolysis
and fermentation (SHF) and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF). For

Processes 2022,10, 1965 4 of 20
an SHF system, both operating conditions of hydrolysis and fermentation are operated
independently at different optimal conditions. Using this method, the optimization and
control of the process conditions, such as the temperature and pH of the hydrolysis and
fermentation, can be performed effectively [
64
]. In contrast, SSF system performs better
than SHF, where SSF has a shorter processing time, lower cost, and higher bioethanol yield.
Nevertheless, it is challenging to obtain optimum pH and temperature conditions for both
saccharification and fermentation in the SSF system. Dahnum et al. [
64
] showed that SSF
has a shorter processing time of 72 h than SHF in producing bioethanol at a temperature of
32
◦
C and pH of 4.8. Similarly, Sukhang et al. [
55
] concluded that SSF provided a higher
bioethanol yield of 0.281 g/g EFB than SHF, with a yield of 0.258 g/g EFB at a temperature
of 36.94
◦
C and pH of 4.5. Both studies implied that the optimal temperature for both
enzyme and yeast activity was in the range of 32
◦
C to 39.8
◦
C, while the pH was acidic in
the range of 4.0–5.0 [59].
For xylitol production, the hydrolyzed hemicellulose (xylose) from the pretreatment
is further converted to xylitol via chemical (hydrogenation) or biological (fermentation)
routes [
65
]. In the chemical route, xylitol production consists of three stages after the
pretreatment stage: xylose purification, catalytic hydrogenation, and xylitol purification.
Xylose purification is essential to obtain a high concentration of xylose, reduce unwanted
side products and deactivate the acid catalyst used [
31
,
57
]. The hydrogenation step occurs
in the presence of the Raney-nickel catalyst. This catalyst is widely used in industry
because it offers a high yield of 80% to 95% xylitol and conversion efficiency of 98% [
66
–
68
].
Then, the produced xylitol is purified with filtration or ion exchange to recover xylitol at
higher purity. At the industrial level, the chemical route is commonly used [
31
,
68
], but
the drawbacks are high separation and purification costs, high energy consumption, and
environmental impacts, such as toxic catalysts and high-pressure hydrogen gas [
65
]. The
biological route has recently become more attractive because the process is sustainable and
has a lower cost than the chemical route. Yeast that belongs to the genus Candida sp. [
69
] can
convert xylose into xylitol with a yield of up to 90% [
66
]. Another report from Tamburini
et al. [
70
] showed that the genus Candida sp. can produce xylitol at a maximum yield of
86.84% at 32
◦
C, 80 g/L xylose and pH 2.5. Nevertheless, the biological route’s limitations
are the expensive separation process of xylitol from the fermentation broth and the toxicity
effects of xylitol to yeast [
31
,
57
]. Kresnowati et al. [
71
] proposed using ultrafiltration
membrane technology to obtain high xylitol concentrations from fermentation broths. The
proposed method has the potential for energy savings and higher purity, but the fouling
problems need to be addressed.
According to the Malaysia National Biomass Strategy 2020 [
72
], pellet production is
identified as a low entry point to generate wealth from biomass because of its technological
maturity, relatively low capital investment, and short payback time. Expansion investment
to produce 2G biofuels and biochemicals has a higher risk; however, the potential value
creation is up to 5 times the revenue of pellets per dry ton of solid biomass input. In
the long term, valorizing EFB biomass will minimize waste and recover more valuable
products that will increase the profitability of the investment. More effort is required
to remove the barriers of unfavorable high processing costs and low profitability of final
products [
20
,
73
], Therefore, a techno-economic feasibility study of an integrated bio-refinery
to produce pellets, xylitol, and bioethanol was developed and evaluated in this work. The
aim is to identify the process that is profitable with the production of these three products.
If the higher-value biochemicals global market materializes earlier, EFB can be swiftly
diverted to these biochemicals’ production. In this work, a pilot scale pretreatment plant
in Malaysia was used as a case study to investigate the potential to expand the products
to pellets, biofertilizer, xylitol, and bioethanol. The respective products’ market demand,
technological production, and economic potential are investigated as well.

Processes 2022,10, 1965 5 of 20
2. Methodology
The following section describes the methodology required to develop the analysis.
Figure 1shows the flow of techno-economic analysis of the bio-refinery plant starting
from developing the process flow diagram until evaluating the economic performance
metrics of different scenarios. The first step was to develop the process flow diagram
(PFD) of a bio-refinery to produce pellet, xylitol and bioethanol from empty fruit bunches,
where feed-in streams, output streams, conversion factor, process flow, unit operations and
its corresponding operating conditions were identified. The law of mass conservation is
still applicable even though there are chemical reactions and physical transformations of
feedstock. Thereafter, materials balance was performed by accounting for the materials
entering and leaving the system. With the mass balance information, the total capital
investment (TCI), total production cost (TPC) and revenue were estimated. The net present
value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), payback period (PBP) and internal rate of return
(IRR) were calculated from the cash flow analysis based on the predefined scenarios. It
should be noted that both TCI and TPC were only preliminary estimations due to the
limited data available. However, the estimations will not affect the overall analysis at
different scenarios because the comparisons were made on the same ground.
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
products to pellets, biofertilizer, xylitol, and bioethanol. The respective products’ market
demand, technological production, and economic potential are investigated as well.
2. Methodology
The following section describes the methodology required to develop the analysis.
Figure 1 shows the flow of techno-economic analysis of the bio-refinery plant starting
from developing the process flow diagram until evaluating the economic performance
metrics of different scenarios. The first step was to develop the process flow diagram
(PFD) of a bio-refinery to produce pellet, xylitol and bioethanol from empty fruit bunches,
where feed-in streams, output streams, conversion factor, process flow, unit operations
and its corresponding operating conditions were identified. The law of mass conservation
is still applicable even though there are chemical reactions and physical transformations
of feedstock. Thereafter, materials balance was performed by accounting for the materials
entering and leaving the system. With the mass balance information, the total capital in-
vestment (TCI), total production cost (TPC) and revenue were estimated. The net present
value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), payback period (PBP) and internal rate of return
(IRR) were calculated from the cash flow analysis based on the predefined scenarios. It
should be noted that both TCI and TPC were only preliminary estimations due to the
limited data available. However, the estimations will not affect the overall analysis at dif-
ferent scenarios because the comparisons were made on the same ground.
Figure 1. Methodology of techno-economic analysis.
2.1. Process Design Description
The bio-refinery was designed based on an EFB feedstock capacity of 126,720
tons/year with an actual annual operation of 5280 h (330 days, based on the existing pellet
production plant) to produce three main products: pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol. The pro-
cess flow diagram of the bio-refinery is shown in Figure 2. The detail process description
is described in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 below. The EFB feedstock was split into two
streams, one for pellet production and the other for xylitol and bioethanol. In this study,
the profitability of the coproduction of these three products was investigated based on the
splitting ratio between these two streams. Table 1 shows an example of the material bal-
ance of the bio-refinery at 30% EFB fed into the pellet production plant.
Figure 1. Methodology of techno-economic analysis.
2.1. Process Design Description
The bio-refinery was designed based on an EFB feedstock capacity of 126,720 tons/year
with an actual annual operation of 5280 h (330 days, based on the existing pellet production
plant) to produce three main products: pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol. The process flow
diagram of the bio-refinery is shown in Figure 2. The detail process description is described
in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 below. The EFB feedstock was split into two streams, one for
pellet production and the other for xylitol and bioethanol. In this study, the profitability
of the coproduction of these three products was investigated based on the splitting ratio
between these two streams. Table 1shows an example of the material balance of the
bio-refinery at 30% EFB fed into the pellet production plant.

Processes 2022,10, 1965 6 of 20
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
Table 1. Overall Mass Balance Summaries at a 30% EFB Splitting Ratio to Pellet Production.
Materials Consumption or Yield (ton/day)
In
EFB (dry) 384.00
Water (H2O) 5776.40
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 27.46
Ozone (O3) 8 × 10−3
Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) 20.31
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 31.21
Enzyme 0.88
Yeast 12.54
Total 6252.79
Out Delignification residue 122.17
Water (H2O) 5786.27
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 0.58
Depleted ozone (O3) 8 × 10−3
Calcium sulfate (CaSO4) 37.31
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 31.21
Spent enzyme 0.88
Spent yeast 12.54
Xylose 0.96
Glucose 29.17
Xylitol 72.75
Bioethanol 43.75
Pellet 100.80
Dust 10.86
Fertilizer 3.54
Total 6252.79
Figure 2. Process flow diagram of the proposed integrated bio-refinery.
Figure 2. Process flow diagram of the proposed integrated bio-refinery.
Table 1. Overall Mass Balance Summaries at a 30% EFB Splitting Ratio to Pellet Production.
Materials Consumption or Yield (ton/day)
In
EFB (dry) 384.00
Water (H2O) 5776.40
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 27.46
Ozone (O3)8×10−3
Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) 20.31
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 31.21
Enzyme 0.88
Yeast 12.54
Total 6252.79
Out Delignification residue 122.17
Water (H2O) 5786.27
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 0.58
Depleted ozone (O3)8×10−3
Calcium sulfate (CaSO4) 37.31
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 31.21
Spent enzyme 0.88
Spent yeast 12.54
Xylose 0.96
Glucose 29.17
Xylitol 72.75
Bioethanol 43.75
Pellet 100.80
Dust 10.86
Fertilizer 3.54
Total 6252.79

Processes 2022,10, 1965 7 of 20
2.1.1. Pellet Production Plant
The EFB feed for pellet production is pretreated with solvents consists of dilute sulfuric
acid (H
2
SO
4
) (0.5% w/w), ozone (O
3
) (6.92
×
10
−4
%w/w) and water (H
2
O) (10 ton/ton
of EFB) in the pretreatment reactor (R-101) at 180
◦
C and 1 bar [
74
]. The pretreatment
process is aiming to exposing its cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin fraction and reducing
the amount of ash content in the EFB [
45
]. Table 2shows the EFB compositions before
and after the pretreatment. The pretreated EFB is then dried (D-101) at temperature of
120
◦
C and pressure of 1 bar, which has a moisture content of approximately 50 wt% [
75
,
76
].
The dried EFB is then fed into the pelletization chamber (P-101) to produce pellet at 75
◦
C
and at a maximum compression pressure of 200 MPa [
77
]. About 87.5% of raw EFB is
converted into pellet form and the remaining is dust [
78
]. Meanwhile, the effluent from the
pretreatment reactor (R-101) contains of 3.08% dissolved solids [
74
] is fed into the activated
carbon adsorption (A-101) at 25
◦
C to separate solubilized N, P and K nutrient [
79
]. The
solvent is recycled back to be used in the pretreatment stage while the remaining solid is
removed as fertilizer.
Table 2. Overall Mass Balance Summaries at a 30% EFB Splitting Ratio to Pellet Production [74,80].
Chemical Composition Percentage (wt%, Dry Basis)
Raw EFB Pretreated EFB
Cellulose 45.2% 80.8%
Hemicellulose 29.5% 6.0%
Lignin 23.6% 13.0%
Ash 1.7% 0.3%
2.1.2. Xylitol and Bioethanol Production Plant
The EFB feed for xylitol and bioethanol production is pretreated with dilute acid in
the acid hydrolysis reactor (R-102) with H
2
SO
4
(1.25% w/v) and water at 120
◦
C and at
a solid-liquid ratio of 1:8 [
75
,
81
]. At these reaction conditions, 93% of hemicellulose is
converted into soluble xylose, whereas the remaining insoluble hemicellulose, cellulose
and lignin are separated as feedstock for bioethanol production. The xylose fraction
thereafter is dosed with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)
2
) in neutralization reactor (N-101) to
neutralize the H
2
SO
4
at 130
◦
C [
75
,
82
]. The amount of Ca(OH)
2
consumed is 0.77 ton/ton
of H
2
SO
4
used in the acid hydrolysis process [
75
,
83
]. The neutralized xylose is sent to
the evaporator (E-101) to remove the moisture content at 121
◦
C and then to the activated
carbon adsorption unit (
A-102
) at 25
◦
C to remove calcium sulfate (CaSO
4
) (1.25 ton/ton
of Ca(OH)
2
) formed during the neutralization process [
75
,
79
]. Xylose is then fermented
with Candida guiliermondii yeast (0.17 ton/ton xylose) in fermentation reactor (R-103) to
produce xylitol at 30
◦
C with a yield of 98.7% [
75
]. The fermented liquid containing xylitol
is filtered (F-101) to remove the yeast. The xylitol is then purified using ion-exchange
chromatography (I-101) at 25
◦
C and crystallized with a crystallizer (C-101) and 40
◦
C to
obtain xylitol in the form of solid crystal [75].
The cellulose and lignin-rich solid phase that leaves the acid hydrolysis reactor (
R-102
)
is further processed for bioethanol production. The solid is first treated with 2% (w/v)
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution in the delignification reactor (R-104) at a solid-liquid
ratio of 1:20 and at 120
◦
C [
75
]. The treatment aims to remove lignin and other components
from cellulose. Delignification process is an important step to liberate cellulose and hemi-
cellulose from their complex with lignin, so that these compounds can undergo hydrolysis
to produce fermentable sugars. The effluent that is in the form of black liquor, contain-
ing hemicellulose, ash, NaOH and water, is removed from the delignification reactor as
waste. The cellulose-containing stream is fed into enzymatic hydrolysis reactor (R-105) to
further degrade into glucose at temperature of 45 ◦C [75]. Trichoderma reesei cellulase with
a consumption rate of 0.02 ton/ton of ethanol is used as the enzyme [
74
]. The hydrolysis
process produces 60% of glucose-rich hydrolysate [
75
]. The glucose is then separated from

Processes 2022,10, 1965 8 of 20
the solid residue containing unreacted cellulose and enzyme in the filter unit (F-101). The
glucose is fermented to produce ethanol in fermentation reactor (R-105) at 30
◦
C, using
Zymomonas mobilis
yeast with a consumption rate of 0.0004 ton/ton of ethanol [
84
]. This
process converts 60% of glucose into bioethanol [
75
]. The bioethanol-containing stream is
separated from the solid residue containing the yeast in the filter unit (F-102) and the unre-
acted glucose or stillage using distillation column (D-101) at 78.15
◦
C [
85
]. The bioethanol is
finally dehydrated with rectification column to remove excess water (D-102) at 78.15
◦
C [
74
].
2.2. Estimation of Total Capital Investment (TCI) and Total Production Cost (TPC)
The total capital investment (TCI) of the bio-refinery was estimated using the power
law or exponential method and Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI), as shown
in Equations (1) and (2), respectively.
C2=C1×S2
S1n
(1)
where
C1=Cost of the reference plant at capacity of S1;
C2=Cost of the plant at desired capacity of S2;
n=Scale exponent or cost-capacity factor.
The cost of the plant at the desired capacity
(C2)
is the result of multiplication between
the reference plant cost
(C1)
and the capacity ratio of the new capacity
(S2)
to the reported
capacity
(S1)
, to the power of sizing exponent
(n)
. The
n
value of 0.6 was used in this
preliminary study because a typical chemical plant typically follows the six-tenths rule [
86
].
TC Ip,x,b=∑
p,x,b
C2×CEPCInew
CEPCIinstall
(2)
where
TC Ip,x,b=Total capital cost of the bio-refinery;
C2=Cost of the plant at desired capacity;
CEPCInew =Chemical engineering cost price index at present year;
CEPCIinstall =Chemical engineering cost price index at reference year.
As shown in Equation (2), the cost of the desired plant capacity
(C2)
is then scaled
to the desired time value of TCI using the CEPCI, which is a dimensionless number to
estimate the capital cost from the past year to the year 2020. The total capital investment
of all three products,
TC Ip,x,b
, is the summation of all three TCI estimated individually
from their respective CEPCI at its respective year. The reference capital, capacity and
CEPCIinstall
of pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol production plant used for this study are listed
in Table 3. All CEPCI values were obtained from chemengonline [
87
], where the
CEPCInew
of year 2020 is 588.06.
Table 3. Total capital investment of individual pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol production plant.
Products Cost of the Reference
Plant, C1(Million USD)
Production Capacity,
S1(Ton/Year) CEPCIinstall Value Ref.
Pellet 14.05 110,880 CEPCI (2018):
603.10 [74]
Xylitol 220.06 30,624 CEPCI (2016):
541.70 [88]
Bioethanol
40.58 9966 CEPCI (2016):
556.80 [82]

Processes 2022,10, 1965 9 of 20
It should be noted that the TCI is estimated based on order of magnitude with limited
information, hence the accuracy range is rather wide. Nonetheless, such simplified method
allows us to estimate the cost quickly at a different EFB splitting ratio to pellet production.
The total production cost (TPC) is the total cost incurred for the production of a
particular amount of products. The TPC consists of two components, namely cost of
manufacturing,
COMp,x,b
and general expenses,
GEp,x,b
, as shown in Equation (3). The
COM consists of the variable cost of production,
VCOPp,x,b
, fixed cost of production,
FCOPp,x,b
, and plant overhead,
POp,x,b
, as shown in Equation (4). Sinnott and Towler [
89
]
have suggested the percentage shares of each component in Equations (3) and (4); these
percentage shares are listed in Table 4. The cost of raw materials is listed in Table 5.
TPCp,x,b=COMp,x,b+GEp,x,b(3)
COMp,x,b=VCOPp,x,b+FCOPp,x,b+POp,x,b(4)
Table 4. Summary of percentage shares of TPC [89,90].
Total Production Cost (TPC) Percentages Share
1. Variable cost (VCOP) 66% of TPC
(a) Operating labor 10% of VCOP
(b) Utility 10% of VCOP
(c) Patents and royalties 6% of VCOP
(d) Direct supervisory and clerical labor 4% of VCOP
(e) Maintenance and repair 4% of VCOP
(f) Operating supplies 4% of VCOP
(g) Laboratory charges 4% of VCOP
2. Fixed cost (FCOP) 10% of TPC
(a) Local taxes 2% of FCOP
(b) Insurance 2% of FCOP
(c) Financial cost (interest) 3% of FCOP
(d) Rent 3% of FCOP
3. Plant overhead cost 9% of TPC
4. General expenses (GE) 15% of TPC
(a) Administrative expenses 5% of GE
(b) Distribution and marketing expenses 10% of GE
(c) Research and development expenses 5% of GE
Table 5. Cost of raw materials.
Raw Material Cost (USD/Ton) Ref.
EFB 6 [14]
Sulfuric acid 41 [74]
Enzyme 6310 [84]
Yeast 5700 [84]
Calcium hydroxide 75 [88]
Sodium hydroxide 98 [75]
Water 0.63 [91]
2.3. Calculation of Economic Performance Metrics
There are a few tools that can be used to evaluate the economic feasibility of an
investment; some take the time value of money (TVM) into consideration, and others
do not. Example tools for the former are NPV and IRR, whereas the latter are PBP and
ROI. The tools that do not take TVM into consideration are relatively less complicated
and straightforward to use, thus providing a rapid assessment of the viability of a project.
However, if the duration length of investment is long, then the tools with TVM provide a
more realistic analysis. Eventually, all these tools analyze the cash flow with or without
discounted factors from various perspectives to provide a decision-making value for

Processes 2022,10, 1965 10 of 20
investors to consider. To begin with, this study considered the project has a life expectancy
of 20 years, a 100% TCI was spent in year 0, and the minimum acceptable rate of return
(MARR) was set at 16%, which indicates the level of risk of the investment. The level of
risk is low because the pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol are considered biorefineries with new
capacity with the established corporate market position [
92
]. The prevailing corporate tax
rate was set at 24% in reference to the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia. Although asset
depreciation has no direct impact on cash flow, it changes the tax liabilities. Herewith, the
straight-line annual depreciation method was used to estimate the asset depreciation.
NPV, as shown in Equation (5), is the measure of profitability based on the total present
value of a time series of cash flows,
CFn
, at any time period (n) in years from the present
time with an interest rate of i. The interest rate was assumed to be the same as MARR [
92
].
This method converts the cash flow in the future to present values for comparison. A
positive NPV indicates a viable investment. A greater and positive NPV indicates the
project is competitive.
NPV =∑
n=0
CFn
(1+i)n(5)
The IRR calculation is complementary to the NPV calculation, where it measures the
discounted annual rate of return and provides a safety investment margin. The IRR is the
interest rate at which NPV is equal to zero, as shown in Equation (6).
NPV =∑
n=0
CFn
(1+IRR)n=0, (6)
The PBP is a profitability measure in terms of the length of time to recover the cost of
investment. The limitation of the PBP method is that the cash flows beyond the breakeven
year are no longer relevant; thus, it is not able to capture the long-term profitability of
the investment. The PBP calculation used for this study was based on uneven cash flows,
as shown in Equation (7). The PBP was calculated by adding the final year, n, that has a
negative cumulative cash flow with the fraction of the absolute value of cumulative cash
flow, CC Fnat nyear to the cash flow, CFn,at n+ 1 year.
PBP =n+CCFn
CFn+1(7)
ROI is a simple measure of the economic performance of the money that has been
invested. The ROI is expressed as a percentage of the ratio between net profits,
NPavg
to
the TCI as in Equation (8).
ROI (%) = NPavg
TCI ×100 (8)
The profitability of the bio-refinery can be determined after the NPV, PBP, ROI, and
IRR have been calculated. Table 6summarizes the profitability indicators to decide whether
the investment is acceptable or not. A positive NPV indicates that the earnings of the
bio-refinery exceed the costs, and therefore, the bio-refinery is considered economically
viable. Table 7shows the selling price of pellet, fertilizer, xylitol, and bioethanol. The
desired PBP of the investments should be under 5 years to be attractive [
93
]. The ROI and
IRR should be more than the MARR set in this study to be profitable. The higher the ROI
and IRR, the greater the returns exceed the capital cost [88].

Processes 2022,10, 1965 11 of 20
Table 6. Profitability indicators of the bio-refinery.
Performance Criteria Comments Ref.
NPV
Acceptable if in positive value
[94]
PBP
Acceptable if in a short period
of time [88]
ROI Higher than the MARR [92]
IRR Higher than the MARR [88]
Table 7. Selling price of products.
Product Cost (USD/ton) Ref.
Pellet 90 [95]
Xylitol 5500 [96]
Bioethanol 963 [92]
Fertilizer 300 [97]
3. Results and Discussion
To examine the economic feasibility of the bio-refinery, three scenarios are evaluated
in different settings. The scenario analysis is simulated based on the assumption that
an existing pellet production plant’s expansion produces higher-value products: xylitol
and bioethanol.
Scenario 1: Economic analysis at different EFB splitting ratios to pellet production and
xylitol and bioethanol production. In this scenario, the effect of EFB splitting ratios on the
economic performance metrics is calculated to analyze the production process’s viability.
Scenario 2: Sensitivity analysis at different EFB and product prices based on an EFB
splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production and 70% to xylitol and bioethanol production.
The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to address the price fluctuations of EFB feedstock
cost and market selling price of the pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol.
Scenario 3: Economic analysis of the coproduction of pellet with xylitol or pellet
with bioethanol. The purpose of this analysis is to investigate whether the coproduction
of pellets with xylitol or pellets with bioethanol is more economically feasible than the
baseline scenario.
3.1. Profitability Analysis of Scenario 1
Figure 3shows the profitability analysis of Scenario 1 at different EFB splitting ratios
for pellet production and xylitol and bioethanol production, with a minimum acceptable
return rate (MARR) of 16% and a 20-year life span. Both splitting ratios of 0% and 100%
indicated that all EFB feedstock was fed into the production stream of xylitol/bioethanol
and pellet, respectively. The splitting ratio of 0% had the highest net present value (NPV) of
129 million USD. Nevertheless, the NPV dropped drastically with the increase in the EFB
splitting ratio to pellet production. In fact, the NPV plunged below zero at a splitting ratio
of 80% and beyond and recovered slightly to the value of approximately 8 million USD
at 100% EFB for pellet production only. In other words, for any EFB splitting ratio below
80%, the production of these three products is still feasible. The main reason for reducing
NPV with the increase in EFB splitting ratio is the high total capital investment (TCI) and
total production cost (TPC) of both xylitol and bioethanol processes that are not able to
recover from revenue generation. It should be noted that xylitol products are the primary
contributor to overall revenue because of their high market price of 5500 USD/ton [
96
].
As more EFB was diverted to the production of pellets, xylitol and bioethanol’s capacity
was subsequently reduced, which reduced the overall revenue. For every 10% increment
in pellet production, the revenue is reduced by 19 million USD annually on average. By
estimating from the slope in Figure 4, the reduction rate of revenue was much higher than
TCI and TPC. The recovery of NPV to a positive value at 100% EFB for pellet production is

Processes 2022,10, 1965 12 of 20
due to the exclusion of TCI and TPC of xylitol and bioethanol, which require expensive
enzymes and yeast for production.
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
production is due to the exclusion of TCI and TPC of xylitol and bioethanol, which require
expensive enzymes and yeast for production.
Figure 3. Economic profitability analysis at different EFB splitting ratios to pellet production.
Figure 4. Changes in TCI, TPC, and annual revenue (at full capacity) at different EFB splitting ratios
to pellet production.
On the other hand, the payback period (PBP) is an indicator of the length of time
needed for the initial investment to break even or recover the investment cost; thus, a
shorter PBP is preferred over a longer PBP. In this analysis, the payback period showed a
Figure 3. Economic profitability analysis at different EFB splitting ratios to pellet production.
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
production is due to the exclusion of TCI and TPC of xylitol and bioethanol, which require
expensive enzymes and yeast for production.
Figure 3. Economic profitability analysis at different EFB splitting ratios to pellet production.
Figure 4. Changes in TCI, TPC, and annual revenue (at full capacity) at different EFB splitting ratios
to pellet production.
On the other hand, the payback period (PBP) is an indicator of the length of time
needed for the initial investment to break even or recover the investment cost; thus, a
shorter PBP is preferred over a longer PBP. In this analysis, the payback period showed a
Figure 4.
Changes in TCI, TPC, and annual revenue (at full capacity) at different EFB splitting ratios
to pellet production.
On the other hand, the payback period (PBP) is an indicator of the length of time
needed for the initial investment to break even or recover the investment cost; thus, a
shorter PBP is preferred over a longer PBP. In this analysis, the payback period showed a

Processes 2022,10, 1965 13 of 20
reversed trend of NPV, where the length of PBP increased gradually from 4.5 years (0% EFB
splitting ratio) to 6.9 years (90% EFB splitting ratio) and decreased to 4.1 years at a 100%
EFB splitting ratio. Typically, a PBP of less than or approximately five years is favorable [
93
].
Therefore, an EFB splitting ratio below 40% is justifiable. Similar to the NPV analysis, the
TCI and TPC for pellet production only were 96% and 94% lower than those of xylitol
and bioethanol production only, respectively. If all three products are to be considered
in the production, TCI and TPC contributions by xylitol and bioethanol production will
be significant. The unit operations involved in pellet production only consisted of a
pretreatment reactor, dryer, and pelletization mill as the main process equipment. Those
were less complex and less costly than the unit operations involved in xylitol and bioethanol
production only, which consisted of a hydrolysis and fermentation reactor, activated carbon
adsorption column, and distillation column. Moreover, the raw materials for xylitol and
bioethanol production also involved the use of expensive enzymes (6310 USD/ton) [
84
]
and yeast (5700 USD/ton) [
84
], as well as large amounts of sodium hydroxide and water,
which have also contributed to a higher TPC.
Both return on investment (ROI) and internal return rate (IRR) values showed a
similar reduction trend of NPV from the EFB splitting ratios from 0% to 90% but rebounded
strongly to an ROI value of 23% and an IRR value of 25%, higher than that at the EFB
splitting ratio of 0%. The difference between ROI and IRR is that IRR takes into account the
time value of money by assuming the NPV equals 0 at the end of the 20-year life span; hence,
the IRR values are slightly higher than the ROI values, which are in the range of 2% to 3%.
The ROI and IRR were less favorable for the coproduction of xylitol and bioethanol than for
pellet production only because the TCI and TPC of xylitol and bioethanol production were
much more costly than those of pellet production. The ROI and IRR were then compared to
MARR. It was found that the ROI and IRR of EFB splitting ratios below 40% and 70% were
above 16%, respectively, which indicated that the investment was feasible and acceptable.
Comparing these four economic performance metrics, several possible production
combinations were considerable, depending on the investor’s interest and the demand for
the products. For example, suppose the investor has an existing pellet production plant and
would like to diversify some of the EFB feedstock to xylitol and bioethanol production. In
that case, it is recommended that the EFB splitting to the existing pellet production should
be 40% or less. The ROI and IRR of these options may seem lower than those of the existing
pellet production plant. The NPV, which is the time value of money of cumulative cash
flow, is at least one order of magnitude greater than that of the existing pellet production
plant. Nonetheless, the tradeoff would be a slightly longer PBP as well as a higher TCI
and TPC.
3.2. Profitability Analysis of Scenario 2
While the TCI requires a large lump sum at the beginning of the investment, it is
usually a one-off contribution and is not affected by the global market supply chain. Both
TPC and revenue contributed by the feedstock price and product selling price play a more
important role during the operation lifetime. To understand the effect of the feedstock price
and product selling price on the economic analysis, we performed a sensitivity analysis
using the EFB splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production as a basis, where the corresponding
prices and economic performance metrics are listed in Table 8.
Figure 5shows the changes in economic performance metrics (NPV, PBP, ROI, and IRR)
with EFB feedstock and product prices. Figure 5A shows that the feedstock price did not
significantly impact the economic performance metrics. The price changes in EFB feedstock
only affect the TPC. With a savings of 33% of the feedstock price (4 USD/ton), the NPV
was improved by 5%, the PBP was reduced by less than 1%, and the ROI and IRR were
improved by approximately 1%. In contrast, if the feedstock price was increased by 33%
(8 USD/ton) and by 67% (10 USD/ton), the NPV was reduced by 5% and 10%, respectively.
PBP length was increased slightly by 1% to 2%, while the ROI and IRR were reduced by less
than 3%. In fact, an EFB price of 10 USD/ton still generated a positive NPV value, a PBP

Processes 2022,10, 1965 14 of 20
period of 5 years was still acceptable, and both the ROI and IRR were still more significant
than the MARR. The sensitivity analysis concluded that the contribution of EFB feedstock
price to the total production cost is less significant.
Table 8.
Baseline parameters and economic performance metrics at an EFB splitting ratio of 30% to
pellet production.
Parameters Baseline Data
NPV (Million USD) 67.67
PBP (years) 4.92
ROI (%) 17.51%
IRR (%) 20.31%
EFB Price (USD/ton) 6
Xylitol Price (USD/ton) 5500
Bioethanol Price (USD/ton) 963
Pellet Price (USD/ton) 90
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
IRR (%) 20.31%
EFB Price (USD/ton) 6
Xylitol Price (USD/ton) 5500
Bioethanol Price (USD/ton) 963
Pellet Price (USD/ton) 90
Figure 5 shows the changes in economic performance metrics (NPV, PBP, ROI, and
IRR) with EFB feedstock and product prices. Figure 5A shows that the feedstock price did
not significantly impact the economic performance metrics. The price changes in EFB feed-
stock only affect the TPC. With a savings of 33% of the feedstock price (4 USD/ton), the
NPV was improved by 5%, the PBP was reduced by less than 1%, and the ROI and IRR
were improved by approximately 1%. In contrast, if the feedstock price was increased by
33% (8 USD/ton) and by 67% (10 USD/ton), the NPV was reduced by 5% and 10%, respec-
tively. PBP length was increased slightly by 1% to 2%, while the ROI and IRR were re-
duced by less than 3%. In fact, an EFB price of 10 USD/ton still generated a positive NPV
value, a PBP period of 5 years was still acceptable, and both the ROI and IRR were still
more significant than the MARR. The sensitivity analysis concluded that the contribution
of EFB feedstock price to the total production cost is less significant.
Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis of price changes in (A) EFB; (B) pellet; (C) bioethanol; and (D) xylitol
at the basis of EFB splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production and MARR of 16%.
Figure 5.
Sensitivity analysis of price changes in (
A
) EFB; (
B
) pellet; (
C
) bioethanol; and (
D
) xylitol at
the basis of EFB splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production and MARR of 16%.
As shown in Figure 5B, the changes in the pellet price also indicate a relatively low
impact on the economic performance metrics. When the pellet price (90 USD/ton) was

Processes 2022,10, 1965 15 of 20
increased by 30%, the NPV, ROI, and IRR were increased by 5%, 1.4%, and 1.1%, respectively,
while the PBP was reduced by less than 1%. Conversely, when the pellet’s price was reduced
by 30%, the NPV, ROI, IRR, and PBP showed their corresponding opposite values. The
small changes in the economic performance metrics were partly due to the pellet’s selling
price being much lower than that of the other two products; hence, the contribution to the
changes in revenue was negligible.
The changes in bioethanol price have a greater impact on the economic performance
metrics, as shown in Figure 5C. An increase of 30% in bioethanol’s price improved the NPV,
ROI, and IRR by 25%, 6.5%, and 5.0%, respectively, and reduced the PBP by approximately
4.2%. A positive increase in the price of bioethanol is highly desirable to offset the expensive
raw materials used in production, such as enzymes and yeast, and the large quantity of
sodium hydroxide and water consumption in the delignification process.
The changes in xylitol price have the most significant effect on the economic perfor-
mance metrics, as shown in Figure 5D. An increase in xylitol’s price by 30% increased the
NPV by 237%, improved the ROI and IRR by 62% and 45%, respectively, and shortened
the PBP by 28%. Nevertheless, xylitol’s lower boundary price could not be lower than
4802 USD/ton, approximately 12% lower than the benchmark price of 5500 USD/ton, to
maintain a positive NPV. A 12% reduction in xylitol price shrank NPV, ROI, and IRR by
95%, 24.8%, and 20.0%, respectively, and increased the PBP by 20.8%.
In summary, there are three factors that contribute to an attractive economic perfor-
mance: TCI, TPC, and revenue generation. Pricing sensitivity analysis has addressed the
contributions of TPC and revenue generation to the economic performance metrics. It has
been shown that the feasibility of coproduction of all three products (pellet, bioethanol,
and xylitol) is highly dependent on the selling price of xylitol, which offers little room for
price competition. Alternatively, one should forgo one of the products to further mitigate
the risk and reduce TCI. This leads to the next scenario analysis, which is the coproduction
of pellets with xylitol and the coproduction of pellets with bioethanol.
3.3. Profitability Analysis of Scenario 3
In Scenario 3, the economic performances of the coproduction of pellet with xylitol
and coproduction of pellet with bioethanol were compared with the coproduction of pellet
with xylitol and bioethanol on the basis of an EFB splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production
at a MARR of 16%. The results are presented in Figure 6. Only the coproduction of pellet
and xylitol is a feasible solution compared to the coproduction of pellet and bioethanol. On
the other hand, the NPV of coproduction of pellets with xylitol was increased by 31%, while
the PBP was reduced slightly to less than 4.5 years. The ROI and IRR of this combination
were improved to 20% and 23%, respectively, above the MARR of 16%.
The coproduction of pellets and bioethanol was a no-go option due to its expensive pre-
treatment process, low bioethanol yield, and selling price of bioethanol, which contributed
to a negative NPV (Figure 6). From the simulation, the price of ethanol was required to be at
least 1882 USD/ton to achieve a MARR of 16% or 1538 USD/ton at a lower MARR of 10%.
This is consistent with Do et al. [
98
] on the limitation of bioethanol production from EFB. To
further confirm bioethanol production’s economic feasibility from EFB as a lignocellulosic
source, a scenario of total conversion from EFB to bioethanol was further conducted. With
the bioethanol production of 0.16 ton/ton of EFB, the production is only feasible with a
bioethanol market price of 1758 USD/ton. This is in accord with the techno-economic
analysis performed by Dávila et al. [
75
], which indicated that even with heat integration
in the process that further reduced the production cost by 43%, the production price was
still higher than the market price. This reflects the energy-intensive process with the heavy
use of chemicals aside from the expensive enzymes for the purification and conversion
involved in bioethanol production. This result also reflects that commercial production of
bioethanol from lignocellulosic raw materials alone has not been widely implemented [
30
].

Processes 2022,10, 1965 16 of 20
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
Figure 6. Economic profitability analysis of coproduction of pellet with xylitol and bioethanol, pellet
with xylitol, and pellet with bioethanol at EFB splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production and MARR
of 16%.
The coproduction of pellets and bioethanol was a no-go option due to its expensive
pretreatment process, low bioethanol yield, and selling price of bioethanol, which contrib-
uted to a negative NPV (Figure 6). From the simulation, the price of ethanol was required
to be at least 1882 USD/ton to achieve a MARR of 16% or 1538 USD/ton at a lower MARR
of 10%. This is consistent with Do et al. [98] on the limitation of bioethanol production
from EFB. To further confirm bioethanol production’s economic feasibility from EFB as a
lignocellulosic source, a scenario of total conversion from EFB to bioethanol was further
conducted. With the bioethanol production of 0.16 ton/ton of EFB, the production is only
feasible with a bioethanol market price of 1758 USD/ton. This is in accord with the techno-
economic analysis performed by Dávila et al. [75], which indicated that even with heat
integration in the process that further reduced the production cost by 43%, the production
price was still higher than the market price. This reflects the energy-intensive process with
the heavy use of chemicals aside from the expensive enzymes for the purification and
conversion involved in bioethanol production. This result also reflects that commercial
production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic raw materials alone has not been widely
implemented [30].
4. Conclusions
In this study, three scenarios were evaluated to determine the profitability of a bio-
refinery producing pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol. The bio-refinery was found to be prof-
itable at an EFB splitting ratio of below 40% for pellet production, resulting in a positive
NPV, PBP lower than five years, and ROI and IRR higher than the MARR value of 16%.
The results also showed that it is possible to produce both pellets and xylitol, which re-
sulted in a higher NPV, shorter PBP, and higher ROI and IRR than the baseline scenario.
The selling price of ethanol from either coproduction of pellets and bioethanol or bioeth-
anol alone is still less competitive entering the market. Still, the coproduction of bioetha-
nol with xylitol is feasible with a higher NPV than coproduction with pellets. Neverthe-
less, this work has successfully demonstrated that the valorization of EFB to high-value
products is feasible.
Figure 6.
Economic profitability analysis of coproduction of pellet with xylitol and bioethanol, pellet
with xylitol, and pellet with bioethanol at EFB splitting ratio of 30% to pellet production and MARR
of 16%.
4. Conclusions
In this study, three scenarios were evaluated to determine the profitability of a bio-
refinery producing pellet, xylitol, and bioethanol. The bio-refinery was found to be prof-
itable at an EFB splitting ratio of below 40% for pellet production, resulting in a positive
NPV, PBP lower than five years, and ROI and IRR higher than the MARR value of 16%. The
results also showed that it is possible to produce both pellets and xylitol, which resulted in
a higher NPV, shorter PBP, and higher ROI and IRR than the baseline scenario. The selling
price of ethanol from either coproduction of pellets and bioethanol or bioethanol alone is
still less competitive entering the market. Still, the coproduction of bioethanol with xylitol
is feasible with a higher NPV than coproduction with pellets. Nevertheless, this work has
successfully demonstrated that the valorization of EFB to high-value products is feasible.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, K.L.L. and W.Y.W.; methodology, K.L.L. and W.Y.W.;
S.K.L. and M.T.L.; formal analysis, N.J.R. and K.L.L.; investigation, K.L.L. and W.Y.W.; resources,
S.K.L. and M.T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, N.J.R.; writing—review and editing, K.L.L.
and W.Y.W.; supervision, K.L.L. and W.Y.W.; funding acquisition, K.L.L. and M.T.L. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by TNB Research Sdn. Bhd., grant number TNBR/SF0348/2019
and by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, grant number GP-2019-K017662 and PP-SELFUEL-2022.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank for the administrative support from UKM Pakarunding
Sdn. Bhd.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

Processes 2022,10, 1965 17 of 20
References
1.
Ahmad Parveez, G.K.; Hishamuddin, E.; Loh, S.K.; Ong-Abdullah, M.; Mohamed Salleh, K.; Bidin, M.N.I.Z.; Sundram, S.; Azizul
Hasan, Z.A.; Idris, Z. Oil Palm Economic Performance in Malaysia and R&D Progress in 2019. J. Oil Palm Res. 2020,32, 159–190.
[CrossRef]
2.
Al-Qahtani, A.M.; Jebaraj, S. Oil Demand Forecasting in Malaysia in Transportation Sector Using Artificial Neural Network. Int. J.
Sci. Eng. Invent. 2019,5, 8–14. [CrossRef]
3.
Chan, Y.H.; Cheah, K.W.; How, B.S.; Loy, A.C.M.; Shahbaz, M.; Singh, H.K.G.; Yusuf, N.a.R.; Shuhaili, A.F.A.; Yusup, S.; Ghani,
W.A.W.A.K.; et al. An overview of biomass thermochemical conversion technologies in Malaysia. Sci. Total Environ.
2019
,
680, 105–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Hassan, N.; Idris, A.; Akhtar, J. Overview on Bio-refinery Concept in Malaysia: Potential High Value Added Products from Palm
Oil Biomass. J. Kejuruter. 2019,2, 113–124. [CrossRef]
5.
Vaskan, P.; Pachón, E.R.; Gnansounou, E. Techno-economic and life-cycle assessments of biorefineries based on palm empty fruit
bunches in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 3655–3688. [CrossRef]
6.
Hamzah, M.A.A.; Alias, A.B.; Him, N.R.N.; Rashid, Z.A.; Ghani, W.A.W.A.K. Characterization of food waste and empty fruit
bunches (EFB) for anaerobic digestion application. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019,1349, 12132. [CrossRef]
7.
MPOB. Overview of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry 2019. Available online: https://bepi.mpob.gov.my/images/overview/
Overview_of_Industry_2019.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020).
8.
Ahmad, F.B.; Zhang, Z.; Doherty, W.O.S.; O’Hara, I.M. The outlook of the production of advanced fuels and chemicals from
integrated oil palm biomass biorefinery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019,109, 386–411. [CrossRef]
9.
Rosli, N.S.; Harun, S.; Md Jahim, J.; Othaman, R. Chemical and Phyiscal Characterization of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch. Malays.
J. Anal. Sci. 2017,21, 188–196. [CrossRef]
10.
Darojat, K.; Hadi, W.; Rahayu, D.E. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) utilization of oil palm empty fruit bunches as bioenergy. AIP
Conf. Proc. 2019,2194, 020019. [CrossRef]
11.
Hamzah, N.; Tokimatsu, K.; Yoshikawa, K. Solid Fuel from Oil Palm Biomass Residues and Municipal Solid Waste by Hydrother-
mal Treatment for Electrical Power Generation in Malaysia: A Review. Sustainability 2019,11, 1060. [CrossRef]
12.
Alaw, F.A.; Sulaiman, N.S. A Review of Boiler Operational Risks in Empty Fruit Bunch Fired Biopower Plant. J. Chem. Eng. Ind.
Biotechnol. 2020,5, 29–35. [CrossRef]
13.
Poh, P.E.; Wu, T.Y.; Lam, W.H.; Poon, W.C.; Lim, C.S. Sustainability of waste management initiatives in palm oil mills. In Green
Energy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 57–73. [CrossRef]
14.
Abdulrazik, A.; Elsholkami, M.; Elkamel, A.; Simon, L. Multi-products productions from Malaysian oil palm empty fruit bunch
(EFB): Analyzing economic potentials from the optimal biomass supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,168, 131–148. [CrossRef]
15.
Garcia-Nunez, J.A.; Ramirez-Contreras, N.E.; Rodriguez, D.T.; Silva-Lora, E.; Frear, C.S.; Stockle, C.; Garcia-Perez, M. Evolution
of palm oil mills into bio-refineries: Literature review on current and potential uses of residual biomass and effluents. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2016,110, 99–114. [CrossRef]
16.
Mohd Yusof, S.J.H.; Zakaria, M.R.; Roslan, A.M.; Ali, A.A.M.; Shirai, Y.; Ariffin, H.; Hassan, M.A. Oil palm biomass biorefinery
for future bioeconomy in Malaysia. In Lignocellulose for Future Bioeconomy; Ariffin, H., Sapuan, S.M., Hassan, M.A., Eds.; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 265–285. [CrossRef]
17.
James Rubinsin, N.; Daud, W.R.W.; Kamarudin, S.K.; Masdar, M.S.; Rosli, M.I.; Samsatli, S.; Tapia, J.F.; Wan Ab Karim Ghani,
W.A.; Lim, K.L. Optimization of oil palm empty fruit bunches value chain in peninsular malaysia. Food Bioprod. Process.
2020
,
119, 179–194. [CrossRef]
18.
Tapia, J.F.D.; Samsatli, S.; Doliente, S.S.; Martinez-Hernandez, E.; Ghani, W.A.B.W.A.K.; Lim, K.L.; Shafri, H.Z.M.; Shaharum,
N.S.N.B. Design of biomass value chains that are synergistic with the food–energy–water nexus: Strategies and opportunities.
Food Bioprod. Process. 2019,116, 170–185. [CrossRef]
19.
Taqwa, S.A.; Purwanto, W.W. A Superstructure Based Enviro-Economic Optimization for Production Strategy of Oil Palm
Derivatives. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019,543, 012062. [CrossRef]
20.
Harahap, B.M.; Mardawati, E.; Nurliasari, D. A comprehensive review: Integrated microbial xylitol, bioethanol, and cellulase
production from oil palm empty fruit bunches. J. Ind. Pertan. 2020,2, 142–157.
21.
Fuad, M.A.H.M.; Faizal, H.M.; Ani, F.N. Experimental investigation on water washing and decomposition behaviour for empty
fruit bunch. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2019,59, 207–219.
22.
Novianti, S.; Zaini, I.N.; Nurdiawati, A.; Yoshikawa, K. Low Potassium Content Pellet Production by Hydrothermal-Washing
Co-treatment. Int. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. Syst. 2016,1, 28–38.
23.
Tang, Y.; Chandra, R.P.; Sokhansanj, S.; Saddler, J.N. Influence of steam explosion processes on the durability and enzymatic
digestibility of wood pellets. Fuel 2018,221, 87–94. [CrossRef]
24.
Chala, G.T.; Guangul, F.M.; Sharma, R. Biomass Energy in Malaysia-A SWOT Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Jordan
International Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, JEEIT 2019—Proceedings, Amman, Jordan,
9–11 April 2019; pp. 401–406. [CrossRef]
25. Europen Pellet Council. Statistical Pellet Report; Europen Pellet Council: Ixelles, Belgium, 2018.
26. FutureMetrics. Quarterly Pellet Market Report; FutureMetrics: Bethel, ME, USA, 2018.
27. HPBA. Market Research Reports; Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association: Arlington, VA, USA, 2020.

Processes 2022,10, 1965 18 of 20
28.
Brunerová, A.; Müller, M.; Šleger, V.; Ambarita, H.; Valášek, P. Bio-Pellet Fuel from Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB): Using
European Standards for Quality Testing. Sustainability 2018,10, 4443. [CrossRef]
29.
Mohapatra, S.; Ray, R.C.; Ramachandran, S. Bioethanol from Biorenewable Feedstocks: Technology, Economics, and Challenges.
In Bioethanol Production from Food Crops; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 3–27. [CrossRef]
30.
Rosales-Calderon, O.; Arantes, V. A review on commercial-scale high-value products that can be produced alongside cellulosic
ethanol. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2019,12, 240. [CrossRef]
31.
Delgado Arcaño, Y.; Valmaña García, O.D.; Mandelli, D.; Carvalho, W.A.; Magalhães Pontes, L.A. Xylitol: A review on the
progress and challenges of its production by chemical route. Catal. Today 2020,344, 2–14. [CrossRef]
32.
Clauser, N.M.; Gutiérrez, S.; Area, M.C.; Felissia, F.E.; Vallejos, M.E. Alternatives of small-scale biorefineries for the integrated
production of xylitol from sugarcane bagasse. J. Renew. Mater. 2018,6, 139–151. [CrossRef]
33.
Baruah, J.; Nath, B.K.; Sharma, R.; Kumar, S.; Deka, R.C.; Baruah, D.C.; Kalita, E. Recent trends in the pretreatment of lignocellu-
losic biomass for value-added products. Front. Energy Res. 2018,6, 141. [CrossRef]
34.
Hamzah, N.H.C.; Markom, M.; Harun, S.; Hassan, O. The Effect of Various Pretreatment Methods on Empty. Malays. J. Anal. Sci.
2016,20, 1474–1480. [CrossRef]
35.
Cocero, M.J.; Cabeza, Á.; Abad, N.; Adamovic, T.; Vaquerizo, L.; Martínez, C.M.; Pazo-Cepeda, M.V. Understanding biomass
fractionation in subcritical & supercritical water. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2018,133, 550–565. [CrossRef]
36.
Michelin, M.; Romani, A.; Salgado, J.M.; Domingues, L.; Teixeira, J.A. Production of hemicellulases, xylitol, and furan from
hemicellulosic hydrolysates using hydrothermal pretreatment. In Hydrothermal Processing in Biorefineries; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2017; pp. 285–315. [CrossRef]
37.
Pino, M.S.; Rodríguez-Jasso, R.M.; Michelin, M.; Flores-Gallegos, A.C.; Morales-Rodriguez, R.; Teixeira, J.A.; Ruiz, H.A. Bioreactor
design for enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass under the biorefinery concept. Chem. Eng. J. 2018,347, 119–136. [CrossRef]
38.
Derman, E.; Abdulla, R.; Marbawi, H.; Sabullah, M.K. Oil palm empty fruit bunches as a promising feedstock for bioethanol
production in Malaysia. Renew. Energy 2018,129, 285–298. [CrossRef]
39.
Fatriasari, W.; Anita, S.H.; Risanto, L. Microwave Assisted Acid Pretreatment of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) to Enhance
Its Fermentable Sugar Production. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017,8, 379–391. [CrossRef]
40.
Mardawati, E.; Herliansah, H.; Suryadi, E.; Hanidah, I.I.; Siti Setiasih, I.; Robi, A.; Sukarminah, E.; Djali, M.; Rialita, T.; Cahyana,
Y. Optimization of Particle Size, Moisture Content and Reaction Time of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch Through Ozonolysis
Pretreatment. J. Jpn. Inst. Energy 2019,98, 132–138. [CrossRef]
41.
Medina, J.D.C.; Woiciechowski, A.; Filho, A.Z.; Nigam, P.S.; Ramos, L.P.; Soccol, C.R. Steam explosion pretreatment of oil
palm empty fruit bunches (EFB) using autocatalytic hydrolysis: A biorefinery approach. Bioresour. Technol.
2016
,199, 173–180.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Risanto, L. Fitria; Fajriutami, T; Hermiati, E. Enzymatic saccharification of liquid hot water and dilute sulfuric acid pretreated oil
palm empty fruit bunch and sugarcane bagasse. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018,141, 012025. [CrossRef]
43.
Rizal, N.F.A.A.; Ibrahim, M.F.; Zakaria, M.R.; Abd-Aziz, S.; Yee, P.L.; Hassan, M.A. Pre-treatment of Oil Palm Biomass for
Fermentable Sugars Production. Molecules 2018,23, 1381. [CrossRef]
44.
Lam, P.Y.; Lim, C.J.; Sokhansanj, S.; Lam, P.S.; Stephen, J.D.; Pribowo, A.; Mabee, W.E. Leaching characteristics of inorganic
constituents from oil palm residues by water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014,53, 11822–11827. [CrossRef]
45.
Novianti, S.; Nurdiawati, A.; Zaini, I.N.; Sumida, H.; Yoshikawa, K. Hydrothermal treatment of palm oil empty fruit bunches: An
investigation of the solid fuel and liquid organic fertilizer applications. Biofuels 2016,7, 627–636. [CrossRef]
46.
Kofman, P.D. New Fuels: Thermally Treated Biomass. Available online: http://www.coford.ie/media/coford/content/
publications/projectreports/cofordconnects/cofordconnectsnotes/00675CCNPP40Revised091216.pdf (accessed on 20
September 2020).
47.
Yaacob, N.; Rahman, N.A.; Matali, S.; Idris, S.S.; Alias, A.B. An overview of oil palm biomass torrefaction: Effects of temperature
and residence time. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2016,36, 012038. [CrossRef]
48.
Faizal, H.M.; Jusoh, M.A.M.; Rahman, M.R.A.; Syahrullail, S.; Latiff, Z.A. Torrefaction of palm biomass briquettes at different
temperature. J. Teknol. 2016,78, 61–67. [CrossRef]
49.
Ruksathamcharoen, S.; Chuenyam, T.; Stratong-on, P.; Hosoda, H.; Ding, L.; Yoshikawa, K. Effects of hydrothermal treatment and
pelletizing temperature on the mechanical properties of empty fruit bunch pellets. Appl. Energy 2019,251, 113385. [CrossRef]
50.
Ahda, Y.; Prakoso, T.; Rasrendra, C.B.; Susanto, H. Hydrothermal treatment, pelletization and characterization of oil palm empty
fruit bunches as solid fuel. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019,543, 012061. [CrossRef]
51.
Zhai, L.; Manglekar, R.R.; Geng, A. Enzyme production and oil palm empty fruit bunch bioconversion to ethanol using a hybrid
yeast strain. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2019,67, 714–722. [CrossRef]
52.
Campioni, T.S.; Soccol, C.R.; LibardiJunior, N.; Rodrigues, C.; Woiciechowski, A.L.; Letti, L.A.J.; Vandenberghe, L.P.D.S. Sequential
chemical and enzymatic pretreatment of palm empty fruit bunches for Candida pelliculosa bioethanol production. Biotechnol.
Appl. Biochem. 2019,67, 723–731. [CrossRef]
53.
Kresnowati, M.; Mardawati, E.; Setiadi, T. Production of Xylitol from Oil Palm Empty Friuts Bunch: A Case Study on Bioefinery
Concept. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2015,9, 206–213. [CrossRef]
54.
Meilany, D.; Kresnowati, M.T.A.P.; Setiadi, T.; Boopathy, R. Optimization of xylose recovery in oil palm empty fruit bunches for
xylitol production. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 1391. [CrossRef]

Processes 2022,10, 1965 19 of 20
55.
Sukhang, S.; Choojit, S.; Reungpeerakul, T.; Sangwichien, C. Bioethanol production from oil palm empty fruit bunch with SSF
and SHF processes using Kluyveromyces marxianus yeast. Cellulose 2020,27, 301–314. [CrossRef]
56.
Kapoor, M.; Semwal, S.; Gaur, R.; Kumar, R.; Gupta, R.P.; Puri, S.K. The Pretreatment Technologies for Deconstruction of
Lignocellulosic Biomass. In Waste to Wealth; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 395–421. [CrossRef]
57.
Laca, A.; Laca, A.; Díaz, M. Hydrolysis: From cellulose and hemicellulose to simple sugars. In Second and Third Generation of
Feedstocks; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 213–240. [CrossRef]
58.
Siregar, J.S.; Ahmad, A.; Amraini, S.Z. Effect of Time Fermentation and Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Concentration for Bioethanol
Production from Empty Fruit Bunch. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019,1351, 012104. [CrossRef]
59.
Sudiyani, Y.; Dahnum, D.; Burhani, D.; Putri, A.M.H. Evaluation and comparison between simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation and separated hydrolysis and fermentation process. In Second and Third Generation of Feedstocks; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 273–290. [CrossRef]
60.
Ghazali, N.F.; Makhtar, N.A. Enzymatic hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch and its kinetics. Malays. J. Anal. Sci.
2018
,
22, 715–722. [CrossRef]
61.
Mardawati, E.; Purwadi, R.; Kresnowati, M.T.A.P.; Setiadi, T. Evaluation of the enzymatic hydrolysis process of Oil Palm empty
fruit bunch using crude fungal xylanase. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017,12, 5286–5292.
62.
De Paula, R.G.; Antoniêto, A.C.C.; Ribeiro, L.F.C.; Carraro, C.B.; Nogueira, K.M.V.; Lopes, D.C.B.; Costa Silva, A.; Zerbini, M.T.;
Pedersoli, W.R.; Do Nascimento Costa, M.; et al. New genomic approaches to enhance biomass degradation by the industrial
trichoderma reesei. Int. J. Genom. 2018,2018, 17. [CrossRef]
63.
Mohd Azhar, S.H.; Abdulla, R.; Jambo, S.A.; Marbawi, H.; Gansau, J.A.; Mohd Faik, A.A.; Rodrigues, K.F. Yeasts in sustainable
bioethanol production: A review. Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2017,10, 52–61. [CrossRef]
64.
Dahnum, D.; Tasum, S.O.; Triwahyuni, E.; Nurdin, M.; Abimanyu, H. Comparison of SHF and SSF processes using enzyme and
dry yeast for optimization of bioethanol production from empty fruit bunch. Energy Procedia 2015,68, 107–116. [CrossRef]
65.
Barathikannan, K.; Agastian, P. Xylitol: Production, Optimization and Industrial Application. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.
2016,5, 324–339. [CrossRef]
66.
Dasgupta, D.; Ghosh, D.; Bandhu, S.; Adhikari, D.K. Lignocellulosic sugar management for xylitol and ethanol fermentation with
multiple cell recycling by Kluyveromyces marxianus IIPE453. Microbiol. Res. 2017,200, 64–72. [CrossRef]
67.
Felipe Hernández-Pérez, A.; de Arruda, P.V.; Sene, L.; da Silva, S.S.; Kumar Chandel, A.; de Almeida Felipe, M.d.G. Xylitol
bioproduction: State-of-the-art, industrial paradigm shift, and opportunities for integrated biorefineries. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.
2019,39, 923–924. [CrossRef]
68.
Hafyan, R.; Bhullar, L.; Putra, Z.; Bilad, M.; Wirzal, M.; Nordin, N. Sustainability assessment of xylitol production from empty
fruit bunch. MATEC Web Conf. 2019,268, 06018. [CrossRef]
69. Borokhova, O.E.; Mikhailova, N.P. Microbial conversion of D-xylose. Microbiol. Res. 1996,65, 581–588.
70.
Tamburini, E.; Costa, S.; Marchetti, M.G.; Pedrini, P. Optimized production of xylitol from xylose using a hyper-acidophilic
Candida tropicalis. Biomolecules 2015,5, 1979–1989. [CrossRef]
71.
Kresnowati, M.T.A.P.; Desiriani, R.; Wenten, I.G. Ultrafiltration of hemicellulose hydrolysate fermentation broth. AIP Conf. Proc.
2017,1818, 20024. [CrossRef]
72.
Agensi Inovasi Malaysia. National Biomass Strategy 2020: New Wealth Creation for the Palm Oil Industry; Agensi Inovasi Malaysia:
Cyberjaya, Malaysia, 2013.
73.
Nitsos, C.; Rova, U.; Christakopoulos, P. Organosolv fractionation of softwood biomass for biofuel and biorefinery applications.
Energies 2018,11, 50. [CrossRef]
74. Lim, M.T. Tenaga Nasional Berhad Research (TNBR), Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Personal communication, 2020.
75.
Dávila, J.A.; Rosenberg, M.; Cardona, C.A. A biorefinery approach for the production of xylitol, ethanol and polyhydroxybutyrate
from brewer’s spent grain. AIMS Agric. Food 2016,1, 52–66. [CrossRef]
76.
Ng, R.T.L.; Hassim, M.H.; Ng, D.K.S.; Tan, R.R.; El-Halwagi, M.M. Multi-objective design of industrial symbiosis in palm oil
industry. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [CrossRef]
77.
Puig-Arnavat, M.; Shang, L.; Sárossy, Z.; Ahrenfeldt, J.; Henriksen, U.B. From a single pellet press to a bench scale pellet
mill—Pelletizing six different biomass feedstocks. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016,142, 27–33. [CrossRef]
78.
Talero, G.F.; González, A.H. Use of Colombian oil palm wastes for pellets production: Reduction of the process energy consump-
tion by modifying moisture content. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Engineering for Waste and Biomass
Valorisation, Albi, France, 23–26 May 2016.
79.
Lee, S.C.; Park, S. Removal of furan and phenolic compounds from simulated biomass hydrolysates by batch adsorption and
continuous fixed-bed column adsorption methods. Bioresour. Technol. 2016,216, 661–668. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80.
Bukhari, N.A.; Abu Bakar, N.; Loh, S.K. Bioethanol Production by Fermentation of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches Pretreated with
Combined Chemicals. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 2014,4, 234–242.
81.
Holgueras Ortega, J. Process Design of Lignocellulosic Biomass Fractionation into Cellulose, Hemicellulose and Lignin by
Prehydrolysis and Organosolv Process. Master’s Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015.
82.
Do, T.X.; Lim, Y.i.; Jang, S.; Chung, H.J. Hierarchical economic potential approach for techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol
production from palm empty fruit bunches. Bioresour. Technol. 2015,189, 224–235. [CrossRef]
83.
Daham, A. Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical Engineering First Year (Report); FT Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014.

Processes 2022,10, 1965 20 of 20
84. Loh, S.K. Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Personal Communication, 2020.
85.
Nilesh, P.P.; Vilas, S.P.; Shashikant, L.B. Molecular Sieve Dehydration: A Major Development In The Field Of Ethanol Dehydration
To Produce Fuel Ethanol. Asian J. Sci. Technol. 2016,7, 2897–2902.
86.
Lemmens, S. Cost engineering techniques & their applicability for cost estimation of organic rankine cycle systems. Energies
2016
,
9, 485. [CrossRef]
87.
Access Intelligence, LLC. The Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. Available online: https://chemengonline.com/pci-home
(accessed on 20 September 2020).
88.
Özüdo˘gru, H.M.R.; Nieder-Heitmann, M.; Haigh, K.F.; Görgens, J.F. Techno-economic analysis of product biorefineries utilizing
sugarcane lignocelluloses: Xylitol, citric acid and glutamic acid scenarios annexed to sugar mills with electricity co-production.
Ind. Crops Prod. 2019,133, 259–268. [CrossRef]
89.
Sinnott, R.; Towler, G. Costing and Project Evaluation. In Chemical Engineering Design, 6th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2020; pp. 275–369. [CrossRef]
90. Sinnot, R. Costing and project evaluation. Chem. Eng. Des. 2005,6, 243–280.
91. SPAN. Water Rates; Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara: Cyberjaya, Malaysia, 2015.
92.
Bidar, B.; Shahraki, F. Energy and exergo-economic assessments of gas turbine based CHP systems: A case study of SPGC utility
plant. Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 2018,37, 209–223.
93.
Ferreira da Silva, A.; Brazinha, C.; Costa, L.; Caetano, N.S. Techno-economic assessment of a Synechocystis based biorefinery
through process optimization. Energy Rep. 2020,6, 509–514. [CrossRef]
94.
Hasanly, A.; Khajeh Talkhoncheh, M.; Karimi Alavijeh, M. Techno-economic assessment of bioethanol production from wheat
straw: A case study of Iran. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2018,20, 357–377. [CrossRef]
95.
Jara, A.A.; Daracan, V.C.; Devera, E.E.; Acda, M.N. Techno-financial Analysis of Wood Pellet Prodiction in the Philippines. J. Trop.
For. Sci. 2016,28, 517–526.
96.
Shankar, K.; Kulkarni, N.S.; Sajjanshetty, R.; Jayalakshmi, S.K.; Sreeramulu, K. Co-production of xylitol and ethanol by the
fermentation of the lignocellulosic hydrolysates of banana and water hyacinth leaves by individual yeast strains. Ind. Crops Prod.
2020,155, 112809. [CrossRef]
97.
Lys, P.; Cachia, F. Handbook on Agricultural Cost of Production Statistics; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6411en/ca6411en.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020).
98.
Do, T.X.; Lim, Y.I.; Jang, S.; Chung, H.J.; Lee, Y.W. Process Design and Economics for Bioethanol Production Process from Palm
Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB). Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2014,33, 1777–1782. [CrossRef]