1 Introduction

Second-generation biofuels are derived from non-food biomass, particularly lignocellulosic materials such as agricultural residues, forestry waste, and other non-edible plant parts. Unlike first-generation biofuels, which are produced from food crops like corn and sugarcane, second-generation biofuels utilize waste materials and non-food biomass, making them a more sustainable and environmentally friendly option. These biofuels are produced through various biochemical and thermochemical processes, including pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation, and gasification (Saini et al., 2014; Srivastava et al., 2017; Kumari and Singh, 2018).

The utilization of agricultural waste and non-food biomass for biofuel production addresses several critical issues. Firstly, it helps in managing agricultural waste, which otherwise poses disposal challenges and environmental hazards. Secondly, it reduces the competition between food and fuel, thereby mitigating the food vs. fuel debate associated with first-generation biofuels (Paudel et al., 2017; Groves et al., 2018). Additionally, using lignocellulosic biomass for biofuel production can significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to energy security by providing a renewable and sustainable energy source (Bhatia et al., 2017; Rai et al., 2022).

The primary distinction between first- and second-generation biofuels lies in the feedstock used. First-generation biofuels are produced from food crops, which can lead to food scarcity and increased food prices. In contrast, second-generation biofuels are derived from lignocellulosic biomass, which includes non-food parts of plants and agricultural residues. This shift not only alleviates the food vs. fuel conflict but also promotes the use of waste materials, enhancing sustainability (Sims et al., 2010; Bhalla et al., 2013). Moreover, second-generation biofuels often require more complex and advanced technologies for conversion, such as pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, which are not necessary for first-generation biofuels (Kucharska et al., 2018).

This study aims to explore the potential of second-generation biofuels by focusing on the utilization of agricultural waste and non-food biomass. It will review the current technologies and methods used for converting lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels, including pretreatment processes, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation techniques. The study will also discuss the socio-economic and environmental benefits of second-generation biofuels, as well as the challenges and future prospects in this field. By providing a comprehensive overview, this study seeks to highlight the importance of advancing second-generation biofuel technologies to achieve a sustainable and renewable energy future.

2 Types of Agricultural Waste and Non-food Biomass Used in Second-Generation Biofuels

2.1 Crop residues

Crop residues, such as corn stover, wheat straw, and rice husk, are significant sources of lignocellulosic biomass for biofuel production. Corn stover, which includes the leaves, stalks, and cobs left after harvesting corn, is particularly notable for its high ethanol yield potential. One study estimates that 1 mg of corn stover can produce approximately 280 L of ethanol (Lal, 2008). Similarly, wheat straw and rice husk are abundant agricultural by-products that can be converted into biofuels through processes like pyrolysis, which has shown promising results in terms of bio-oil yield (Biswas et al., 2017). However, the removal of these residues from fields can lead to soil degradation and increased CO₂ emissions, highlighting the need for balanced management practices (Lal, 2008).

2.2 Forestry residues

Forestry residues, including sawdust and wood chips, are another valuable source of biomass for second-generation biofuels. These materials are by-products of the forestry industry and can be utilized without impacting food production. The use of forestry residues can help reduce waste and provide a sustainable energy source. Studies have shown that these residues can be effectively converted into biofuels, contributing to energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions (Antízar-Ladislao and Turrion-Gomez, 2008).

2.3 Industrial waste

Industrial waste, such as bagasse (the fibrous residue from sugarcane processing) and cotton gin trash, also serves as a feedstock for biofuel production. Bagasse, in particular, is a well-established source of biomass for bioethanol production. Utilizing these industrial by-products not only helps in waste management but also provides an additional revenue stream for industries (Antízar-Ladislao and Turrion-Gomez, 2008). The conversion of these wastes into biofuels can be achieved through various biorefinery techniques, which have been reviewed extensively in the literature (Taghizadeh-Alisaraei et al., 2022; Liang, 2024).

2.4 Dedicated non-food crops

Dedicated non-food crops, such as switchgrass and Miscanthus, are specifically grown for biofuel production. These perennial grasses are less fertilizer-intensive and can be cultivated on marginal lands, reducing the competition with food crops. Switchgrass and Miscanthus have been shown to be viable sources of biomass for biofuel production, with the added benefit of improving soil health and reducing nutrient runoff (Femeena et al., 2018). However, the high production costs associated with these crops have limited their widespread adoption (Femeena et al., 2018).

3 Technological Pathways for Second-Generation Biofuel Production

3.1 Thermochemical processes

Thermochemical processes are pivotal in converting agricultural waste and non-food parts into second-generation biofuels. These processes include gasification, pyrolysis, and hydrothermal carbonization (HTC). Gasification involves the partial oxidation of biomass at high temperatures (800 ℃~1 300 ℃) to produce syngas, a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and other hydrocarbons, which can be further processed into biofuels like bio-methanol and Fischer-Tropsch fuels (Sikarwar et al., 2017). Pyrolysis, on the other hand, thermally decomposes biomass in the absence of oxygen to yield biochar, bio-oil, and syngas. The process parameters such as temperature, heating rate, and reaction time significantly influence the yield and quality of the products (Uzoejinwa et al., 2018; Patra et al., 2021). HTC is particularly effective for wet feedstocks like manure, producing hydrochar with enhanced nutrient content and stability when combined with pyrolysis (Lin et al., 2021). These thermochemical methods are advantageous due to their ability to handle diverse biomass types and produce multiple valuable products (Figure 1) (Chen et al., 2015; Das et al., 2021; Jha et al., 2022).

3.2 Biochemical processes

Biochemical processes, including enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation, are essential for converting lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels. Enzymatic hydrolysis involves breaking down complex carbohydrates in biomass into simple sugars using specific enzymes. These sugars are then fermented by microorganisms to produce bioethanol and other biofuels. The efficiency of these processes depends on the pretreatment of biomass to enhance enzyme accessibility and the optimization of fermentation conditions (Osman et al., 2021). Anaerobic digestion is another biochemical process where microorganisms decompose organic matter in the absence of oxygen to produce biogas, primarily composed of methane and carbon dioxide. This biogas can be upgraded to biomethane, a renewable substitute for natural gas (Lee et al., 2019). The integration of these biochemical processes with thermochemical methods can enhance overall process efficiency and yield (Osman et al., 2021).

3.3 Integrated biorefineries and process optimization

Integrated biorefineries represent a holistic approach to biofuel production, combining multiple conversion technologies to maximize the utilization of biomass and minimize waste. These facilities integrate thermochemical and biochemical processes to produce a spectrum of biofuels and bioproducts. For instance, the co-pyrolysis of agricultural residues with nutrient-rich hydrochars can produce bio-oils with improved fuel properties and biochars suitable for soil amendments (Lin et al., 2021). Process optimization in integrated biorefineries involves fine-tuning operational parameters, such as temperature, pressure, and feedstock composition, to enhance product yields and quality. Advanced reactor designs, such as fluidized bed reactors, are employed for scalable and efficient biofuel production (Das et al., 2021). Life cycle assessment (LCA) is crucial in these settings to evaluate the environmental impacts and ensure the sustainability of biofuel production chains (Sikarwar et al., 2017; Osman et al., 2021). By leveraging integrated biorefineries and optimizing processes, the production of second-generation biofuels from agricultural waste and non-food parts can be significantly improved, contributing to energy security and environmental sustainability.

4 Challenges in the Utilization of Agricultural Waste

4.1 Collection, transportation, and storage

The logistics of collecting, transporting, and storing agricultural waste for biofuel production present significant challenges. Ensuring a consistent, year-round supply of biomass feedstock to commercial-scale plants is complex and costly. The infrastructure required to handle large volumes of agricultural residues is often lacking, and the seasonal nature of agricultural waste further complicates the supply chain (Sims et al., 2010; Procentese et al., 2019). Additionally, the decentralized nature of agricultural waste production necessitates the development of efficient collection systems to minimize transportation costs and environmental impact (Branco et al., 2018).

4.2 Variability in feedstock composition

Agricultural waste varies significantly in its composition, which can affect the efficiency and yield of biofuel production processes. The heterogeneity of lignocellulosic biomass, including differences in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin content, requires tailored pretreatment and conversion technologies to optimize biofuel yields (Ho et al., 2014; Saini et al., 2014). This variability can lead to inconsistent performance in biofuel production, necessitating continuous adjustments and innovations in processing technologies to handle diverse feedstock types effectively (Paudel et al., 2017).

4.3 Technological and infrastructure limitations

The current technological landscape for converting agricultural waste into biofuels is still developing. Many of the processes, such as pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, are not yet fully optimized for large-scale operations. The integration of biorefineries into existing industrial infrastructures, such as pulp and paper mills, offers potential solutions but also requires significant investment and technological advancements (Branco et al., 2018; Patel et al., 2021). Moreover, the lack of established infrastructure for the collection and processing of agricultural waste poses a barrier to the widespread adoption of second-generation biofuels (Zinoviev et al., 2010).

4.4 Economic feasibility and market dynamics

The economic feasibility of producing biofuels from agricultural waste is influenced by several factors, including feedstock costs, processing efficiency, and market demand for biofuels. The high costs associated with the pretreatment and conversion of lignocellulosic biomass can make second-generation biofuels less competitive compared to fossil fuels and first-generation biofuels (Sims et al., 2010; Callegari et al., 2020). Additionally, market dynamics, such as fluctuating oil prices and policy incentives, play a crucial role in determining the viability of biofuel production from agricultural waste. Continued investment in research, development, and supportive policy frameworks is essential to enhance the economic competitiveness of second-generation biofuels (Hirani et al., 2018).

5 Advancements in Conversion Technologies

5.1 Recent innovations in pretreatment methods

Recent advancements in pretreatment methods have significantly improved the efficiency of converting lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels. Various pretreatment techniques, including physical, chemical, physico-chemical, and biological methods, have been explored to enhance the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose for enzymatic hydrolysis. Nonconventional methods such as electrical, ionic liquid-based chemicals, and ruminant biological pretreatment have shown potential, although each comes with its own set of challenges (Paudel et al., 2017; Kumari and Singh, 2018). Combined pretreatments, which integrate multiple methods, have been found to be more effective than single pretreatment approaches, offering extensive scope for future applications (Kumari and Singh, 2018). Hydrothermal treatment, which involves mild conversion processes, has also been highlighted for its ability to handle high moisture content waste biomass, leading to the production of clean solid biofuels (Zhao et al., 2014).

5.2 Improved enzymes and catalysts for biomass conversion

The efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis can be significantly enhanced by optimizing the composition of the enzymatic complex and increasing the catalytic activity and operational stability of its constituent enzymes. Recent developments have focused on producing more active enzyme producers and adapting enzyme complexes to specific biomass types and pretreatment methods (Sinitsyn and Sinitsyna, 2021). Advanced catalytic techniques, including nanocatalysis, are being developed to improve the conversion efficiency of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels. These innovations are crucial for making second-generation biofuels viable and economically competitive (Groves et al., 2018). Additionally, the biochemical route for biofuel production, which involves enzymatic hydrolysis followed by microbial fermentation, has shown greater potential for cost reduction compared to thermochemical routes (Sims et al., 2010).

5.3 Case studies of successful biofuel projects using agricultural waste

Several successful biofuel projects have demonstrated the feasibility of using agricultural waste as a feedstock for second-generation biofuels. For instance, the production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic agricultural residues has been extensively studied, with significant advancements in pretreatment, cellulase production, and ethanol production processes (Saini et al., 2014). Another notable example is the combined bioethanol-biogas production approach, which emphasizes the importance of pretreatment in optimizing the anaerobic digestion of agricultural biomass (Paudel et al., 2017). Pilot projects, such as the one involving deliberative workshops with farmers in Wales, have explored the socio-economic impacts of novel nanocatalysis methods for biofuel production, highlighting the potential of second-generation biofuels in transforming rural communities (Groves et al., 2018). These case studies underscore the practical implementation and scaling of biofuel production processes, demonstrating their potential for commercial viability and environmental sustainability (Menon and Rao, 2012; Sinitsyn and Sinitsyna, 2021).

6 Case Studies and Practical Applications

6.1 Global examples of second-generation biofuel projects

Second-generation biofuels, derived from lignocellulosic biomass and other non-food sources, have seen various implementations worldwide. For instance, the BioRen project in Europe focuses on converting the organic fraction of municipal solid waste into biofuels, supporting a circular economy by recovering and reusing 53% of waste and producing bio-coal with high calorific value (Figure 2) (Kowalski et al., 2022). Another notable example is the pilot project in Wales, which explores the societal impacts of nanocatalysis methods for lignocellulosic biofuel production through deliberative workshops with farmers (Groves et al., 2018). These projects highlight the global efforts to advance second-generation biofuel technologies and their potential socio-economic benefits.

6.2 Country-specific policies and achievements

Countries around the world have implemented various policies to promote the development and adoption of second-generation biofuels. In the European Union, biofuels are integral to meeting climate and energy objectives, with significant investments in research and demonstration projects (Sims et al., 2010). The EU's emphasis on sustainability and circular economy principles is evident in projects like BioRen, which aligns with the EU's waste management and energy recovery goals (Kowalski et al., 2022). In the United States, policies supporting biofuel research and development have led to advancements in microbial fermentation techniques for converting lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels, although commercial viability remains a challenge (Bhatia et al., 2017). These policies and achievements demonstrate the commitment of different countries to fostering sustainable biofuel technologies.

6.3 Industry partnerships and collaborative efforts in biofuel research

Collaborative efforts between industry and research institutions are crucial for the advancement of second-generation biofuels. The integration of biorefineries in existing pulp and paper mills, for example, leverages the industry's infrastructure and technology to produce bioethanol from industrial residues, enhancing both economic and environmental sustainability (Branco et al., 2018). Additionally, partnerships between public and private sectors are essential for overcoming technical and economic challenges, as seen in the continued investment in research and demonstration projects for second-generation biofuels (Sims et al., 2010). These collaborations not only drive technological innovation but also ensure that biofuel production processes are economically viable and environmentally friendly.

7 Environmental and Societal Benefits

7.1 Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Second-generation biofuels, derived from agricultural waste and non-food parts, have shown significant potential in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Unlike first-generation biofuels, which often involve land-use changes that can negate their carbon savings, second-generation biofuels utilize waste biomass, thereby avoiding the carbon debt associated with land conversion (Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger et al., 2008). Studies indicate that second-generation biofuels can mitigate GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to fossil fuels, provided there is no land-use change involved (Jeswani et al., 2020; Srivastava et al., 2020). This reduction is crucial for meeting international climate targets and reducing the overall carbon footprint of the transportation sector (Whittaker et al., 2011; Callegari et al., 2020).

7.2 Contribution to circular economy principles

The production of second-generation biofuels aligns well with the principles of a circular economy. By utilizing agricultural waste and non-food biomass, these biofuels help in closing the loop of resource use, turning waste into valuable energy sources. This not only reduces the environmental impact of waste disposal but also promotes the efficient use of resources. The integration of biofuel production into existing agricultural systems can enhance the sustainability of both energy and food production sectors, contributing to a more resilient and circular economy (Aron et al., 2020).

7.3 Waste management and energy security

Second-generation biofuels offer a dual benefit of effective waste management and enhanced energy security. By converting agricultural residues and non-food biomass into biofuels, these technologies help in managing waste that would otherwise contribute to environmental pollution (Srivastava et al., 2020). Additionally, the use of locally available biomass for biofuel production reduces dependence on imported fossil fuels, thereby enhancing energy security. This is particularly important for countries looking to diversify their energy sources and reduce their vulnerability to global energy market fluctuations (Fargione et al., 2008; Callegari et al., 2020).

7.4 Impacts on rural economies and job creation

The development of second-generation biofuels can have significant positive impacts on rural economies. The cultivation and processing of biomass feedstocks create new job opportunities in rural areas, from farming and harvesting to biofuel production and distribution. This can lead to economic revitalization of rural communities, providing stable income sources and reducing rural-urban migration. Moreover, the establishment of biofuel production facilities in rural areas can stimulate local economies by creating demand for goods and services, further contributing to regional development (Aron et al., 2020).

8 Sustainability and Policy Considerations

8.1 Regulatory frameworks supporting second-generation biofuels

Second-generation biofuels, derived from agricultural waste and non-food parts, are increasingly supported by regulatory frameworks aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promoting sustainable energy sources. The European Union's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the US Renewable Fuel Standard are pivotal in this regard. These policies mandate life cycle assessment (LCA) based GHG accounting to ensure biofuel sustainability (Lazarevic and Martin, 2018). However, the methodologies and system boundaries used in these assessments can vary significantly, leading to different interpretations of sustainability (Czyrnek-Delêtre et al., 2017). The RED, for instance, focuses on GHG emissions but may not fully account for other environmental impacts such as acidification and eutrophication (Czyrnek-Delêtre et al., 2017; Meng and McKechnie, 2019).

8.2 Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuel production

LCA is a critical tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of biofuel production. It encompasses the entire life cycle of the biofuel, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal. Studies have shown that second-generation biofuels generally have a greater potential to reduce GHG emissions compared to first-generation biofuels, provided there is no land-use change (LUC) (Kendall and Yuan, 2013; Jeswani et al., 2020). However, the outcomes of LCA studies are highly situational and depend on various factors, including feedstock type, production routes, and methodological choices (Garlapati et al., 2019; Jeswani et al., 2020). Integrating multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) into LCA can help address these complexities by considering a broader range of sustainability indicators (Romero-Perdomo and González-Curbelo, 2023).

8.3 Comparison of sustainability metrics with first-generation biofuels

First-generation biofuels, primarily derived from food crops, have been criticized for their limited GHG reduction potential and adverse environmental impacts. In contrast, second-generation biofuels, which utilize agricultural waste and non-food parts, offer a more sustainable alternative. They generally exhibit lower GHG emissions and avoid the food-versus-fuel dilemma (Kendall and Yuan, 2013; Jeswani et al., 2020). However, the sustainability of second-generation biofuels is not without challenges. LCA studies indicate that while they may reduce GHG emissions, they can also lead to other environmental impacts such as acidification, eutrophication, and biodiversity loss (Czyrnek-Delêtre et al., 2017; Collotta et al., 2019; Jeswani et al., 2020). Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of sustainability metrics is essential to fully understand their environmental trade-offs.

8.4 Global trends and future policy outlook

Globally, there is a growing trend towards the adoption of second-generation biofuels as part of a broader strategy to transition to a circular bioeconomy. Countries are increasingly recognizing the potential of agricultural waste and non-food parts as valuable bioresources for sustainable energy production (Aron et al., 2020; Romero-Perdomo and González-Curbelo, 2023). Future policies are likely to focus on enhancing the sustainability of biofuel production by incorporating more comprehensive LCA methodologies and addressing the social and economic dimensions of sustainability (Collotta et al., 2019). Additionally, there is a need for harmonized regulatory frameworks that can provide clear guidelines and reduce the variability in LCA outcomes (Czyrnek-Delêtre et al., 2017; Meng and McKechnie, 2019). As the technology and methodologies for biofuel production continue to evolve, future policies will need to adapt to ensure that the benefits of second-generation biofuels are fully realized while minimizing their environmental impacts.

9 Future Prospects and Innovations

9.1 Emerging technologies in biofuel production

The development of second-generation biofuels has seen significant advancements in recent years, particularly in the areas of catalytic techniques and bioconversion processes. Advanced catalytic methods, such as nanocatalysis, are being explored to enhance the efficiency of lignocellulosic biofuel production (Groves et al., 2018). Additionally, the integration of high-resolution analytical techniques, such as chromatography and nuclear magnetic resonance, has improved the characterization of complex biomass feedstocks, leading to better optimization of bioconversion processes (Tingley et al., 2021). Emerging technologies also include the use of thermo-bio-chemical processes to convert various biomass wastes into biofuels, which are considered eco-friendly and efficient (Ambaye et al., 2021).

9.2 Role of genetic engineering and synthetic biology

Genetic engineering and synthetic biology play a crucial role in enhancing the production of second-generation biofuels. Advances in these fields have led to the development of genetically modified microorganisms with improved capabilities for biomass deconstruction and fermentation (Ambaye et al., 2021). The discovery and annotation of carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) through in silico methods have further optimized the biocatalytic conversion of agricultural residues (Tingley et al., 2021). These innovations not only increase the yield of biofuels but also reduce the costs associated with their production, making them more commercially viable.

9.3 Scaling up and commercialization challenges

Despite the technological advancements, scaling up the production of second-generation biofuels to a commercial level presents several challenges. One of the primary issues is the logistics of providing a consistent and competitive supply of biomass feedstock throughout the year (Sims et al., 2010). Additionally, the high costs associated with the conversion processes, particularly the biochemical routes, need to be addressed to make large-scale production economically feasible (Sims et al., 2010). Continued investment in research and development, along with supportive policy mechanisms, is essential to overcome these barriers and achieve full commercialization (Sims et al., 2010).

9.4 Potential for second-generation biofuels to meet global energy needs

Second-generation biofuels have the potential to significantly contribute to global energy needs by providing a sustainable and renewable alternative to fossil fuels. They offer several advantages, including reduced net carbon emissions, increased energy efficiency, and decreased dependency on fossil fuels (Antízar-Ladislao and Turrion-Gomez, 2008). The use of agricultural residues and other lignocellulosic biomass as feedstocks ensures a sustainable supply of raw materials without competing with food production (Saini et al., 2014). Moreover, the development of local bioenergy systems can optimize the production and consumption of biofuels, further enhancing their sustainability and economic viability (Antízar-Ladislao and Turrion-Gomez, 2008). With continued advancements and supportive policies, second-generation biofuels could play a pivotal role in meeting future energy demands while addressing environmental and socio-economic challenges (Zinoviev et al., 2010; Callegari et al., 2020).

10 Concluding Remarks

Second-generation biofuels, derived from lignocellulosic biomass such as agricultural waste, represent a significant advancement over first-generation biofuels. These biofuels offer the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, and decrease dependency on fossil fuels. The development of advanced catalytic techniques and the utilization of agricultural residues are central to making these technologies viable. Additionally, the socio-economic impacts of these technologies, particularly in rural communities, are crucial for their successful implementation. The review of various production technologies highlights the importance of sustainable management and local bioenergy systems in optimizing the production and consumption of second-generation biofuels.

Agricultural waste plays a pivotal role in the development of second-generation biofuels. These wastes, which include crop residues and lignocellulosic biomass, are abundant and renewable resources that do not compete with food production. Utilizing agricultural waste for biofuel production not only provides a sustainable energy source but also addresses waste management issues, contributing to a circular economy. The conversion of these wastes into bioethanol and other biofuels involves several steps, including pretreatment, saccharification, and microbial fermentation, which have seen significant advancements in recent years. The integration of these processes into local bioenergy systems can further enhance the sustainability and efficiency of biofuel production.

The future of second-generation biofuels looks promising, with continued research and technological advancements expected to overcome current challenges. The focus on improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of biofuel production processes, such as advanced catalytic methods and bioconversion techniques, will be crucial. Additionally, the development of policies and support mechanisms that promote sustainable practices and responsible innovation will be essential for the commercial viability of these biofuels. As the global energy landscape shifts towards more sustainable sources, second-generation biofuels are poised to play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions and supporting energy security. The successful integration of these biofuels into local and global energy systems will depend on continued investment in research, development, and infrastructure.

Acknowledgments

The author sincerely appreciates the valuable opinions and suggestions provided by the two anonymous reviewers.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The author affirms that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Ambaye T., Vaccari M., Bonilla-Petriciolet A., Prasad S., Hullebusch E., and Rtimi S., 2021, Emerging technologies for biofuel production: a critical review on recent progress, challenges and perspectives, Journal of Environmental Management, 290: 112627.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112627

Antízar-Ladislao B., and Turrion-Gomez J., 2008, Second-generation biofuels and local bioenergy systems, Biofuels, 2(5): 455-469.

https://doi.org/10.1002/BBB.97

Aron N., Khoo K., Chew K., Show P., Chen W., and Nguyen T., 2020, Sustainability of the four generations of biofuels – a review, International Journal of Energy Research, 44: 9266-9282.

https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5557

Bhalla A., Bansal N., Kumar S., Bischoff K., and Sani R., 2013, Improved lignocellulose conversion to biofuels with thermophilic bacteria and thermostable enzymes, Bioresource Technology, 128: 751-759.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.145

Bhatia S., Kim S., Yoon J., and Yang Y., 2017, Current status and strategies for second generation biofuel production using microbial systems, Energy Conversion and Management, 148: 1142-1156.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.06.073

Biswas B., Pandey N., Bisht Y., Singh R., Kumar J., and Bhaskar T., 2017, Pyrolysis of agricultural biomass residues: comparative study of corn cob, wheat straw, rice straw and rice husk, Bioresource Technology, 237: 57-63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.046

Branco R., Serafim L., and Xavier A., 2018, Second generation bioethanol production: on the use of pulp and paper industry wastes as feedstock, Fermentation, 5(1): 4.

https://doi.org/10.3390/FERMENTATION5010004

Callegari A., Bolognesi S., Cecconet D., and Capodaglio A., 2020, Production technologies, current role, and future prospects of biofuels feedstocks: a state-of-the-art review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 50: 384-436.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1629801

Chen W., Lin B., Huang M., and Chang J., 2015, Thermochemical conversion of microalgal biomass into biofuels: a review, Bioresource Technology, 184: 314-327.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.050

Collotta M., Champagne P., Tomasoni G., Alberti M., Busi L., and Mabee W., 2019, Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 115: 109358.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358

Czyrnek-Delêtre M., Smyth B., and Murphy J., 2017, Beyond carbon and energy: the challenge in setting guidelines for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems, Renewable Energy, 105: 436-448.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2016.11.043

Das P., V.P. C., Mathimani T., and Pugazhendhi A., 2021, Recent advances in thermochemical methods for the conversion of algal biomass to energy, The Science of the Total Environment, 766: 144608.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144608

Fargione J., Hill J., Tilman D., Polasky S., and Hawthorne P., 2008, Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt, Science, 319: 1235-1238.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152747

Femeena P., Sudheer K., Sudheer K., Cibin R., and Chaubey I., 2018, Spatial optimization of cropping pattern for sustainable food and biofuel production with minimal downstream pollution, Journal of Environmental Management, 212: 198-209.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.060

Garlapati V., Tewari S., and Ganguly R., 2019, Life cycle assessment of first-, second-generation, and microalgae biofuels, Advances in feedstock conversion technologies for alternative fuels and bioproducts, Woodhead Publishing,, pp.355-371.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817937-6.00019-9

Groves C., Sankar M., and Thomas P., 2018, Second-generation biofuels: exploring imaginaries via deliberative workshops with farmers, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5: 149-169.

https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1422926

Hirani A., Javed N., Asif M., Basu S., and Kumar A., 2018, A review on first- and second-generation biofuel productions, In: Kumar A., Ogita S., Yau Y.Y., eds., Biofuels: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Global Warming, Springer New Delhi, pp.141-154.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3763-1_8

Ho D., Ngo H., and Guo W., 2014, A mini review on renewable sources for biofuel, Bioresource Technology, 169: 742-749.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.022

Jeswani H., Chilvers A., and Azapagic A., 2020, Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review, Proceedings, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 476: 20200351.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351

Jha S., Nanda S., Acharya B., and Dalai A., 2022, A review of thermochemical conversion of waste biomass to biofuels, Energies, 15(17): 6352.

https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176352

Kendall A., and Yuan J., 2013, Comparing life cycle assessments of different biofuel options, Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 17(3): 439-443.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.02.020

Kowalski Z., Kulczycka J., Verhé R., Desender L., Clercq G., Makara A., Generowicz N., and Harazin P., 2022, Second-generation biofuel production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Frontiers in Energy Research, 10: 919415.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.919415

Kucharska K., Hołowacz I., Konopacka-Łyskawa D., Rybarczyk P., and Kamiński M., 2018, Key issues in modeling and optimization of lignocellulosic biomass fermentative conversion to gaseous biofuels, Renewable Energy, 129(Pt A): 384-408.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2018.06.018

Kumari D., and Singh R., 2018, Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes for biofuel production: a critical review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90: 877-891.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.03.111

Lal R., 2008, Crop residues as soil amendments and feedstock for bioethanol production, Waste Management, 28(4): 747-758.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2007.09.023

Lazarevic D., and Martin M., 2018, Life cycle assessment calculative practices in the Swedish biofuel sector: governing biofuel sustainability by standards and numbers, Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8): 1558-1568.

https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2214

Lee S., Sankaran R., Chew K., Tan C., Krishnamoorthy R., Chu D., and Show P., 2019, Waste to bioenergy: a review on the recent conversion technologies, BMC Energy, 1: 1-22.

https://doi.org/10.1186/S42500-019-0004-7

Liang K.W., 2024, Application and economic analysis of pyrolysis technology for industrial waste in biofuel production, Journal of Energy Bioscience, 15(1): 48-59.

https://doi.org/10.5376/jeb.2024.15.0006

Lin J., Mariuzza D., Volpe M., Fiori L., Ceylan S., and Goldfarb J., 2021, Integrated thermochemical conversion process for valorizing mixed agricultural and dairy waste to nutrient-enriched biochars and biofuels, Bioresource Technology, 328: 124765.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124765

Meng F., and McKechnie J., 2019, Challenges in quantifying greenhouse gas impacts of waste-based biofuels in EU and US biofuel policies: case study of butanol and ethanol production from municipal solid waste, Environmental Science & Technology, 53(20): 12141-12149.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04286

Menon V., and Rao M., 2012, Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform chemicals & biorefinery concept, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 38: 522-550.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PECS.2012.02.002

Osman A., Mehta N., Elgarahy A., Al-Hinai A., Al-Muhtaseb A., and Rooney D., 2021, Conversion of biomass to biofuels and life cycle assessment: a review, Environmental Chemistry Letters, 19: 4075-4118.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01273-0

Patel S., Dixit S., Suneja K., and Tipan N., 2021, Second generation biofuel – an alternative clean fuel, Smart Moves Journal Ijoscience, 7(3): 13-21.

https://doi.org/10.24113/IJOSCIENCE.V7I3.364

Patra B., Nanda S., Dalai A., and Meda V., 2021, Slow pyrolysis of agro-food wastes and physicochemical characterization of biofuel products, Chemosphere, 285: 131431.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131431

Paudel S., Banjara S., Choi O., Park K., Kim Y., and Lee J., 2017, Pretreatment of agricultural biomass for anaerobic digestion: Current state and challenges, Bioresource Technology, 245(Pt A): 1194-1205.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.182

Procentese A., Raganati F., Olivieri G., Russo M., Feld M., and Marzocchella A., 2019, Agro food wastes and innovative pretreatments to meet biofuel demand in Europe, Chemical Engineering & Technology, 42(5): 954-961.

https://doi.org/10.1002/CEAT.201800459

Rai A., Makishah N., Wen Z., Gupta G., Pandit S., and Prasad R., 2022, Recent developments in lignocellulosic biofuels, a renewable source of bioenergy, Fermentation, 8(4): 161.

https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8040161

Romero-Perdomo F., and González-Curbelo M., 2023, Integrating multi-criteria techniques in life-cycle tools for the circular bioeconomy transition of agri-food waste biomass: a systematic review, Sustainability, 15(6): 5026.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065026

Saini J., Saini R., and Tewari L., 2014, Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production: concepts and recent developments, 3 Biotech, 5: 337-353.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-014-0246-5

Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., Tokgoz S., Hayes D., and Yu T., 2008, Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change, Science, 319: 1238-1240.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151861

Sikarwar V., Zhao M., Fennell P., Shah N., and Anthony E., 2017, Progress in biofuel production from gasification, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 61: 189-248.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PECS.2017.04.001

Sims R., Mabee W., Saddler J., and Taylor M., 2010, An overview of second generation biofuel technologies, Bioresource Technology, 101(6): 1570-1580.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.046

Sinitsyn A., and Sinitsyna O., 2021, Bioconversion of renewable plant biomass. second-generation biofuels: raw materials, biomass pretreatment, enzymes, processes, and cost analysis, Biochemistry (Moscow), 86: S166-S195.

https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006297921140121

Srivastava N., Srivastava M., Manikanta A., Singh P., Ramteke P., and Mishra P., 2017, Nanomaterials for biofuel production using lignocellulosic waste, Environmental Chemistry Letters, 15: 179-184.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-017-0622-6

Srivastava R., Shetti N., Reddy K., and Aminabhavi T., 2020, Biofuels, biodiesel and biohydrogen production using bioprocesses, A review, Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18: 1049-1072.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00999-7

Taghizadeh-Alisaraei A., Tatari A., Khanali M., and Keshavarzi M., 2022, Potential of biofuels production from wheat straw biomass, current achievements and perspectives: a review, Biofuels, 14: 79-92.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2022.2118779

Tingley J., Low K., Xing X., and Abbott D., 2021, Combined whole cell wall analysis and streamlined in silico carbohydrate-active enzyme discovery to improve biocatalytic conversion of agricultural crop residues, Biotechnology for Biofuels, 14: 1-19.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-020-01869-8

Uzoejinwa B., He X., Wang S., Abomohra A., Hu Y., and Wang Q., 2018, Co-pyrolysis of biomass and waste plastics as a thermochemical conversion technology for high-grade biofuel production: recent progress and future directions elsewhere worldwide, Energy Conversion and Management, 163: 468-492.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.02.004

Whittaker C., McManus M., and Hammond G., 2011, Greenhouse gas reporting for biofuels: a comparison between the RED, RTFO and PAS2050 methodologies, Energy Policy, 39: 5950-5960.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.06.054

Zhao P., Shen Y., Ge S., Chen Z., and Yoshikawa K., 2014, Clean solid biofuel production from high moisture content waste biomass employing hydrothermal treatment, Applied Energy, 131: 345-367.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.06.038

Zinoviev S., Müller‐Langer F., Das P., Bertero N., Fornasiero P., Kaltschmitt M., Centi G., and Miertus S., 2010, Next-generation biofuels: survey of emerging technologies and sustainability issues, ChemSusChem, 3(10): 1106-1133.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201000052