
==== Front
RSC Adv
RSC Adv
RA
RSCACL
RSC Advances
2046-2069
The Royal Society of Chemistry

d4ra04481a
10.1039/d4ra04481a
Chemistry
Biomass as an alternative feedstock to oleochemicals
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1070-6862
Rahmawati Zeni a
Santoso Liangga a
G-4565-2019
Abdullah Wan Nazwanie Wan b
Hamid Abdul c
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5343-7906
Jamari Nor Laili Azua d
Sugiarso Djarot a
Ni'mah Yatim Lailun a
Widati Alfa Akustia e
a Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science and Data Analytics, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Keputih, Sukolilo Surabaya 60111 Indonesia zeni.rahmawati@its.ac.id

b School of Chemical Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 Penang Malaysia
c Department of Heavy Equipment Mechanical Engineering, Politeknik Negeri Madura Indonesia
d Departmen of Chemistry & Biology, Centre of Defence Studies, National Defence University of Malaysia, Kem Sungai Besi Kuala Lumpur 57000 Malaysia
e Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universitas Airlangga Surabaya 60115 Indonesia alfaakustia@fst.unair.ac.id

10 9 2024
4 9 2024
10 9 2024
14 39 2882728843
19 6 2024
23 8 2024
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry
2024
The Royal Society of Chemistry
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
The huge demands for petrochemicals have led to a rapid increase in the production of these fossil-based derivatives. Biomass represents a promising feedstock for addressing the challenges related to petrochemicals in terms of the necessity to apply renewable sources and the need to decrease carbon emissions. Among the natural biomass products, most studies have attempted to upgrade natural oils owing to their promising advantages of worldwide availability, low-cost processing, and built-in functionality. This paper discusses the upgradation of natural oils to the most beneficial oleochemicals, including fatty acids, fatty alcohols, and fatty acid methyl esters. This review also covers the utility, physico-chemical properties, and the production processes for such materials. The interconnected reaction routes to produce oleochemicals and the affecting parameters (catalyst design, temperature, and pressure) are also elucidated. Furthermore, this article discusses the future perspective of oleochemicals based on their development in recent years.

Biomass upgrade to oleochemicals as petrochemical substitutes, including the utility, physical–chemical properties, reaction routes, affecting parameters and the future forecast.

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember 10.13039/501100013355 The Publication Writing and IPR Incentive Program (PPHKI) 2024 pubstatusPaginated Article
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

The dependence of modern society on petrochemicals has been rapidly growing day by day. The huge demands for petrochemicals in numerous sectors, including packaging, electronics, construction, automotive, medicine, security, and houseware, have driven an increase in the production of these oil and gas derivatives (Fig. 1). Subsequently, petrochemicals have emerged as a rapid growth driver of global oil consumption. In 2023, petrochemicals contributed to about a third of global oil demand, and their contribution is predicted to increase to about 50% by 2050.1

Fig. 1 Global demand for petrochemicals.

Nevertheless, the production of petrochemicals is facing several challenges, including depletion of the finite source of oil and gas as well as the rise in carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, many environmental problems, such as climate change and air and water pollution are associated with the production, utilization, and disposal of petrochemical products. Consequently, alternative sustainable sources are needed to replace petrochemical feedstocks.2–4

Biomass has emerged as a promising feedstock for addressing the drawbacks of petrochemicals in regard to the necessity of renewable sources and reduced carbon emissions. Biomass has been attracting increasing attention from researchers since many important chemicals can be derived from biomass conversion. History records the employment of biomass as raw materials for medicinal drugs, flavourings, and fragrances for centuries. For instance, industrial-scale biomass conversion commenced in the second half of the 19th century. Unfortunately, biomass-based chemicals were undesirable back then from an economic point of view since petroleum-based chemicals were cheaper, and the production had been stable for more than 100 years.4,5

Basically, biomass comprises four main products: sugar and starch bioproducts, oil- and fat-based products, gum and wood, and cellulose derivatives.5,6 Biomass is also classified based on the energy content of components such as terpenes, vegetable oils, lignin, and sugars.7–9 Amongst all the products, natural oils are the most common focus of research associated with biomass conversion. A large number of studies have attempted to upgrade natural oil as this biomass exhibits superior advantages, such as worldwide availability, low-cost processing, and built-in functionality.8,10 As can be seen in Fig. 2, the global production of natural oil has been increasing each year.11

Fig. 2 Global vegetable oil production from 2015 to 2024.11

Most importantly, natural oils possess a chemical structure similar to long-chain hydrocarbons derived from petroleum. Natural oil is a potential renewable resource to replace petroleum despite showing several differences, which arise since natural oils are generally oxidized and unsaturated. Nevertheless, the structural differences can be addressed by some chemical processes with particular parameters.

In this paper, the upgrading of natural oil into oleochemicals and green diesel is described with particular emphasis on the scope of utility, physico-chemical properties, and the production aspects. The interconnected reaction pathways to produce oleochemicals as well as the affecting parameters, such as catalyst design, temperature, and pressure, are also thoroughly discussed. This review also provides a future perspective for oleochemicals based on its development in recent years. To the best of our knowledge, an updated review in this area is still unavailable, so this work will fill an important gap.

2. Natural oil refining process

Apart from triglycerides, natural oil comprises several chemicals that can generate adverse effects on the quality of the oil and its derivative products.12,13 These substances include natural components, oxidation products, and chemical pollutants. The most common natural components observed are phospholipids, glycolipids, unsaponifiable matter, waxes, tocopherols, phytosterols, squalene, and terpenoids.12,14,15 The oxidation products consist of peroxides, oxidized fatty acids, and aldehydes. Undesirable chemical pollutants may also be present in the form of pesticides, heavy toxic metals, mineral oil, organic solvent, aflatoxins, PAH, etc.13 Despite their minor proportions (1–2%), these chemicals can influence the properties of the products, such as colour, smoke and foam formation, odours, precipitation, flavour, toxicity, and oxidative stability.16 Subsequently, the refining process must be able to remove unwanted and toxic chemicals. This process embodies two main types: physical and chemical refining.12,13

Physical refining eliminates the unwanted substances by physical separation processes, like atmospheric distillation, steam distillation, and high vacuum distillation.13,16 Physical refining involves certain main principles: degumming for phosphide removal, bleaching-filtration for off-colour elimination, and deodorization for addressing the discharge of volatile substances.12,15 Another report also included deacidification to remove free fatty acids in this category.13 The biggest advantage of physical refining lies in the environmental aspects, energy requirement, and economic point of view.17 Nevertheless, the application of physical refining is limited to certain types of oil, especially crude ones with high acidity. Physical refining also requires high temperature and a vacuum and carries a risk of unwanted products.12

Chemical refining utilizes chemical substances to remove minor unwanted compounds. The principal techniques are similar to the physical one, including degumming, neutralization, washing–drying, bleaching, and deodorization.18 In these processes, several chemicals may be applied, such as acids, enzymes, caustic soda, adsorbents, and membranes.14,17 Chemical refining is considered a highly efficient method with high practicality. However, chemical refining also has some drawbacks, such as excessive oil loss, the formation of undesired side products, and high cost.12,13,17

3. Natural oil upgrade to basic oleochemicals

Natural oil contains a large proportion of triglycerides, with a percentage of 96–98%, while the remaining compounds include phospholipids, free fatty acids, diglycerides, monoglycerides, and minor amounts of sterol, sterol esters, tocopherols, tocotrienols, and trace metals.19,20 The structure of triglycerides comprise three fatty acids attached to one glycerol.21–25 These fatty acids can be saturated or unsaturated with 12–22 carbon atoms in the carbon chain, as shown in Fig. 3. This structure allows distinguishing natural oils from each other by their properties, such as density, viscosity, boiling point, and degree of saturation.21

Fig. 3 Structure of triglyceride (a) and tri-acyl glyceride of stearic acid as an example (b).21

The wide-scale application of natural oil has gone through an extensive history, especially a century ago when natural oil was first utilised to fuel an engine by Rudolph Diesel.26 This history emphasizes the feasibility of using natural oil despite its limitations, such as high viscosity, low volatility, and high triglycerides content with a large molecular weight.27,28 From this point, numerous research studies have focused on upgrading natural oil as a biofuel, with many successful examples, such as rapeseed, soybean, sunflower, palm, jatropha, and corn oil. It has also been claimed that biofuel from natural oil is a clean resource and offers some important benefits, such as a stable supply, reduction in CO emissions, and opportunities for the agricultural economy.29–31

Apart from biofuel, natural oil has been extensively investigated as a promising feedstock for many important oleochemicals. Fig. 4 illustrates the products from the upgrading of natural oil, consisting of basic oleochemicals and derivatives. Triglycerides in natural oil can be split up into the two highly important basic oleochemicals, namely fatty acids and fatty acid methyl esters. These two compounds are generated from different reactions with the same by-product of glycerine. Another basic oleochemical type is fatty alcohols, which can be obtained from the hydrogenation of fatty acids or fatty acid methyl esters. All basic oleochemicals are the intermediates of some essential derivatives processed through several different reactions. Detailed discussions of the basic oleochemicals and green diesel are given in the following sub chapters.

Fig. 4 Upgrading natural oil to basic oleochemicals and derivatives.

3.1. Fatty acids

The structure of fatty acids consists of aliphatic groups and carboxyl groups at the end point (Fig. 5). Normally, the aliphatic group exhibits an even number of carbon atoms with the total number differing from one fatty acid to another. Based on the presence of double bonds, fatty acids can be categorised as either saturated or unsaturated.32–35

Fig. 5 Structure of saturated fatty acids.33

The absence of a double bond indicates a saturated fatty acid with variation of the number of carbon atoms between 4 to 24. Most commonly, saturated fatty acids consist of 12 to 22 carbon atoms. Unsaturated fatty acids are identified by the existence of double bonds as well as the number, the position, and the geometry of the double bonds.32Table 1 contains some examples of saturated and saturated fatty acids. The presence of double bonds influences the properties of fatty acids, in which unsaturated fatty acids have a lower boiling melting point and a higher reactivity towards oxidation. Nevertheless, all fatty acids have a very low solubility in water and high dissolution in nonpolar solvents.19,32

Examples of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids

Common name	Carbon atoms	IUPAC name	
Lauric	12	Dodecanoic	
Myristic	14	Tetradecanoic	
Palmitic	16	Hexadecanoic	
Stearic	18	Octadecanoic	
Arachidic	20	Eicosanoic	
Behenic	22	Docosanoic	
Lauroleic	12	9 : 10 decenoic	
12	4 : 5 decenoic	
Myristoleic	14	9 : 10 tetradecenoic	
14	4 : 5 tetradecenoic	
Palmitoleic	16	9 : 10 hexadecenoic	
Oleic	18	9 : 10 octadecenoic	
Linoleic	18	6 : 7, 11 : 12 octadecanoic	

Fatty acids can be derived from natural oils by a process of fat splitting through a hydrolysis reaction.6,36 Chemically, the process is carried out by the addition of water to convert triglycerides to glycerol and fatty acids (Fig. 6).8,37 There are three steps involved in the transformation to split three fatty acid groups attached in triglycerides that result in diglycerides, monoglycerides, and glycerol as by-products for each step, respectively. Therefore, three moles of water are required to transform one mole of triglycerides.

Fig. 6 Hydrolysis of triglycerides to produce fatty acids.8

Commercially, there are three methods for the hydrolysis of natural oil: the Twitchell, autoclave, and continuous method.6,32,38 The Twitchell process is the simplest fat splitting process carried out by heating up natural oil with boiling water in the presence of a catalyst. Sulfuric acid is the common catalyst applied with a low concentration of 1–2%. Nevertheless, this process requires a very long time to accomplish, and gives a maximum yield of 95%.8,38

The autoclave method exhibits a higher efficiency of 95–96% within a shorter reaction time. A high purity of fatty acid is obtained over basic oxide catalysts, such as magnesium and calcium oxides.8,32,38 In addition, this method relies on heat energy to accelerate the reaction, leading to some considerations in terms of the higher investment in energy, maintenance, and cost. Finally, the continuous method is the most viable and preferable technique at the industrial scale.8,32,38 In this latter process, fatty acids are produced by passing water and natural oil at high temperature and pressure, with the continuous removal of glycerol. A highest efficiency of 96–98% and low cost are the main benefits of this method.

Many applications of fatty acids have been mentioned in industry, including lubricants and greases, emulsifiers, textiles, soaps, cosmetics, candles, pharmaceuticals, waxes, and adhesives. Fatty acids are also the first derivative of natural oil as an intermediate to many other oleochemicals, such as such as fatty alcohols, fatty amines, fatty acid methyl esters, fatty acid ethoxylates, and green diesel. The derivatization of fatty acids to these oleochemicals can involves several reactions; for instance, esterification, ethoxylation, neutralisation, amination, and hydrogenation (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 Fatty acids transformation into derivative compounds.

3.2. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME)

Fatty acid methyl ester is derived from natural oil directly through a transesterification reaction in the presence of an alcohol and catalyst. Methanol is the most common alcohol applied in this process due to its reactivity and availability.39–42

Scheme 1 depicts the transesterification of triglycerides to produce fatty acid methyl ester, in which R1, R2, and R3 are long-chain fatty acids. There are five types of fatty acids ordinarily found in natural oil or animal fat, namely palmitate, stearate, oleate, linoleate, and linolenate. Initially, triglyceride is transformed into diglyceride and subsequently monoglyceride. The final product of transesterification is glycerol and methyl esters depending on the fatty acid chains. Therefore, three moles of alcohol are required to convert one mole of triglycerides during transesterification.6

Scheme 1 Transesterification of triglycerides.39

FAME production can be performed by three main pathways: transesterification over acid catalysts, transesterification over base catalysts, and non-catalytic transesterification under supercritical alcohol. Commercially, the main synthesis method applied is the transesterification of triglycerides with strong base catalysts, such as NaOH and KOH.39,43–45 The drawbacks of homogeneous catalysts are their saponification susceptibility and separation issues. Heterogeneous catalysts are also commonly applied for biodiesel production. This type of catalyst has attracted enormous attention due to its excellent activity, high reusability, corrosive resistance, and low-cost.

FAME production through the transesterification reaction is influenced by the methanol oil ratio, reaction time, temperature, and catalyst concentration.46,47 The transesterification can be conducted at a relatively low temperature, whereby the optimum temperature was reported to be around 50–60 °C.48,49 However, higher temperatures are sometimes applied due to the viscosity of the feedstock; for instance, for jatropha oil, soybean oil, and olive oil.27,50–54 The reaction time applied in the transesterification is about 0.25 to 6 h and most studies have mentioned that an effective reaction time is 0.5 to 2 h.46,51,55–60 Excess methanol is required to shift the equilibrium to the product side since transesterification is a reversible reaction. The ratio of methanol/oil mentioned in the literature is in the range of 1–60. However, the range of 10–30 has mainly been reported,61–67 while the catalyst loading varies depending on the catalyst and the feedstock.

FAME is also well known as a biodiesel, primarily as an alternative fuel to replace fossil fuels.68 This compound has some properties similar to the characteristics of fossil fuels (Table 2). Other minor applications include as surfactants or thickening and plastifying agents. Despite being considered a promising alternative fuel, it is worth noting that biodiesel has not yet really achieves the quality of fossil fuels. Hence so far, biodiesel is applied by mixing with fossil fuels. Also, biodiesel has a high oxygen content, which can cause incomplete combustion and lead to the accumulation of carbon in the engine, filter, and nozzles. Furthermore, biodiesel can have degradation issues, with a gum-like formation due to oxidation and polymerization during storage. Moreover, it has a low energy content and thermal stability, which are further matters that require solutions.22,69,70

Physico-chemical properties of petro-diesel and biodiesel68

Fuel properties	Petro-diesel	Biodiesel	
Density	kg m−3	796–841	880	
Viscosity at 40 °C	mm2 s−1	1.9–4.1	2.9–11	
Flash point	°C	54–148	100–180	
Net calorific value	MJ kg−1	42.34–43.1	37.2–38	
Cetane number	Min	40–67	45–65	
Oxygen		—	11.2	
Water content	ppm	—	—	
Sulfur	ppm	<10	<1	

FAME can be upgraded to green diesel by oxygen removal via a deoxygenation reaction. This reaction will produce green diesel with the same structure as alkanes. In addition, FAME can also be transformed into another valuable oleochemical known as fatty alcohol. The selective hydrogenation of FAME has been applied for years to produce fatty alcohols.71 These reactions are interconnected as described in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8 Fatty acid methyl ester reaction network.

3.3. Fatty alcohols

Fatty alcohols have a structure of aliphatic hydrocarbons with a hydroxyl group in the primary position (Fig. 9).73,74 The aliphatic group provides hydrophobic properties while the hydroxyl group is responsible for hydrophilicity. The aliphatic group commonly consists of chain lengths with 8 to 22 carbon (maximum 38 carbon atoms), sometimes with one or more double bonds. Therefore, fatty alcohols are also categorised as saturated and unsaturated. Other categories include linear, branched, primary, and secondary fatty alcohols.73–76

Fig. 9 Structure of fatty alcohols.72

The physical and chemical properties of fatty alcohols are influenced by the number of aliphatic chains and the presence of double bonds. Unsaturated fatty alcohols exhibit a lower melting point, and longer aliphatic chain is insoluble in water. Some examples of fatty alcohols together with their physical and chemical properties are illustrated in Table 3. Fatty alcohols are oleochemicals with a broad range of applications in industry, such as fragrances, detergents, cosmetics, plasticizers, emulsifiers, lubricants, health supplements, and pharmaceuticals.69,77–79 The chemical structure of fatty alcohols having both hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties is the key to these extensive applicable functions.73,74

Examples of fatty alcohols together with their physical and chemical properties72

Synthetic name	Trivial name	Carbon number	Density (g cm−3)	Melting point (°C)	Boiling point (°C)	
Butanol	Butyl	4	0.81	−90	117	
Pentanol	Amyl	5	0.815	−79	137.5	
Hexanol	Caproyl	6	0.815	−51.6	157	
Heptanol	Onantyl	7	0.819	−34.6	175.8	
Octanol	Caprylic	8	0.827	−16	194	
Nonanol	Pelorgonyl	9	0.828	−5	215	
Decanol	Capryl	10	0.83	6.4	232.9	
Dodecanol	Lauryl	12	0.831	24	259	
Tetradecanol	Myristyl	14	0.824	38	289	
Hexadecanol	Cetyl	16	0.811	49	344	
Octadecanol	Stearyl	18	0.811	59	360	

Fig. 10 describes the main applications of fatty alcohols based on the chain length. Cosmetics, foods, and plasticisers require shorter chain fatty alcohols, while middle chain fatty alcohols with 12–14 carbons chain lengths are predominantly utilized in detergent applications, while the longer chain fatty alcohols are used in pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Larger chain fatty alcohols are also commonly applied as biofuel, non-ionic surfactants, and emulsifiers.8,79,80 Additionally, fatty alcohols are intermediates for many important chemicals, such as fatty alcohol ethoxylates, metal alkoxides, and alkyl halides (Fig. 11).

Fig. 10 Main applications of fatty alcohols.80

Fig. 11 Fatty alcohols transformation into derivative compounds.81

Aside from their extensive range of applications, the importance of fatty alcohols can be also observed from their global demand, which has risen each year, amounting to 3.9 million tonnes in 2022.82 The largest consumers are found in Asia-Pacific countries, which account for 45% of global demand. The huge demand is associated with the rapid use of sanitizers, detergents, and soaps during the Covid-19 pandemic. This huge demand is predicted to continuously rise to up to 5.5 million tons by 2030. As with consumption, Asia-Pacific also dominates fatty alcohol production. While individually, Indonesia is one of the largest fatty alcohol suppliers worldwide, with a total capacity of the oleochemical industry of 1.99 million tons per year. Fatty alcohol production alone is estimated to increase 85% each year. The high production is attributed to the abundance of raw materials in the country. Indonesia has many kinds of natural oils as raw materials for oleochemicals and derivative compounds. So far, palm oil is still the main resource for the oleochemical industries.

Fatty alcohols can be produced from petroleum and natural based resources. The synthesis of fatty alcohols from petroleum resources is carried out via the Ziegler process or the oxo process. In the Ziegler process, ethylene is polymerised with tri-ethyl aluminium followed by oxidation or hydrolysis, while the oxo process is performed by the hydroformylation of propylene followed by hydrogenation of the aldehyde.79,83,84

Natural based fatty alcohols can be derived from natural oil via direct hydrogenation. However, the process is undesirable due to cost considerations since excessive hydrogen pressure is required. Moreover, the harsh reaction conditions may possibly degrade the catalyst. These challenges have driven the use of natural derivatives as fatty alcohol and fatty acid methyl ester feedstocks.85,86

Natural based fatty alcohols can be produced by the hydrogenation of several feedstocks, such as fatty acid, fatty acid methyl ester, and wax ester (Scheme 2).23,77,79,87 Commercially, fatty alcohol production is carried out at elevated temperature (200–300 °C) and pressure (100–300 bar) over Cu–Cr-based catalysts.23,79,81,88,89Table 4 shows some examples of fatty alcohol production on an industrial scale.

Scheme 2 Formation of fatty alcohols from different feedstocks.

Industrial-scale fatty alcohol production79

Process condition	Slurry reactor	Fixed bed	
Liquid phase	Gas phase	
Pressure (bar)	250–300	250–300	40	
Temperature (°C)	280	180–220	200–240	
Feed	Methyl or wax ester	Methyl or wax ester	Methyl or wax ester	
Catalyst shape	Powder	Tablets or extrudates	Tablets or extrudates	
H2/feed (molar ratio)	25–50	40–100	250 and above	

The main challenge for fatty alcohol production is to maintain the selectivity while enhancing the conversion. Excessive hydrogenation, decarbonylation, and esterification often occur simultaneously, resulting in alkanes and wax ester as by-products (Scheme 3). Fortunately, wax ester is generally recycled to produce fatty alcohols through hydrogenation.71,90 There are several factors that influence fatty alcohol production, including the catalyst and reaction conditions, which are covered in detail below.

Scheme 3 Reaction pathways for by-product formation.

3.3.1. Catalyst development

The conversion and alcohol selectivity in fatty alcohol production are massively influenced by the choice of catalysts. Apart from high activity and alcohol selectivity, it is very important for the catalyst to have resistance to poison, attrition, and acid. The ease of separation is also important for industrial-scale production, leading to heterogeneous catalysts receiving much attention.77,79

The history of heterogeneous catalysts in natural based fatty alcohol production dates back to 1931. It was initiated by Adkin et al. (1999), who successfully conducted the hydrogenation of esters to fatty alcohols over Cu–Cr catalysts at 250 °C and 250 bar.92 Afterwards, numerous research attempts to optimise the catalytic activity of the Cu–Cr catalyst were performed through some modifications, such as the catalyst preparation method.93 A further optimisation focused on the reaction conditions with the same Cu–Cr catalyst, such as the application of a supercritical solvent to reduce the hydrogen.94,95

Many regulations have been formed against the application of Cr-based catalyst due to its adverse effects on the environment, such as US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Union, and REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals).79 Following such restrictions, many efforts have been dedicated to replacing chromium with other catalyst promoters to obtain excellent activity and high acid resistance. The composition thus shifted to CuZn, CuAl, and CuFe. The application of CuZn-supported catalysts was assessed with some methyl esters and acids, such as methyl acetate, methyl laurate, and lauric acid.91,96–100 Nevertheless, CuZn exhibited a low alcohol selectivity, high selectivity towards heavy esters, and suffered from leaching. Similarly, CuFe showed a slow activity although it provided higher selectivity for alcohol.96 Furthermore, harsh reaction conditions were required during the hydrogenation of ester over a CuFe-supported catalyst.101 On the other hand, supported Cu–Al–O generated a lower conversion and alcohol selectivity even at elevated temperature and high pressure.100,102 Afterwards, the focus of catalyst development then deviated towards noble metal and transition metal catalysts as Cu replacements.

Platinum is one of the most employed hydrogenation catalysts owing to its high activity and hydrogen dissociation capability. For instance, Manyar et al. examined the role of Pt/TiO2 on the hydrogenation of stearic acid under the following reaction conditions: stearic acid 1.4 g, dodecane as a solvent 40 ml, 4% Pt/TiO2 0.3 g, 130 °C, and H2 pressure 20 bar.103 Complete conversion was achieved after 20 h with 93% fatty alcohol selectivity and 7% alkanes. The role of rhenium as a promoter and several supports, such as SiO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, and CreO4, were also investigated. Nevertheless, the addition of rhenium only enhanced the activity yet lowered the selectivity of stearyl alcohol to 70%. Additionally, the effect of the support on the reaction rate was trivial.

Another noble catalyst is palladium. Predominantly, palladium supported catalysts were applied in the hydrogenation of fatty acids and methyl esters in the form of bimetallics or combined with promoters. Silica-supported Pd–Re was tested by Takeda et al. in the hydrogenation of stearic acid.89 The optimum conditions were found to be Re/Pd = 8, H2 initial pressure 80 bar, 140 °C, and a reaction time of 4 h. A selectivity to stearyl alcohol of 96.6% was obtained at a stearic acid conversion of 45.3%.

Some other noble metals, such as rhenium and ruthenium, were also tested in previous studies and are commonly used in bimetallic forms. Pt–Re/TiO2 showed a high activity in stearic acid hydrogenation, with a selectivity to stearyl alcohol reaching 89%. The rhenium metal in this catalyst increased the oxophilicity, leading to a higher reaction rate.104 On the other hand, the catalytic activity of monometallic Ru was very low and only increased with the addition of other metals. The addition of Sn in RuSn/N–C improved the yields of stearyl alcohol up to 38%.105 Other noble metal catalysts are summarised in Table 5. However, the low reaction rates and high cost of catalysts must be considered for industrial application.

Application of noble metal catalysts in fatty alcohol production

Catalysts	Reactant	Reaction conditions	Result	Ref.	
Pt/TiO2	Stearic acid	50 bar, 130 °C, reactant 1.4 g, catalyst 0.3 g, 20 h	Conv. = 100%	103	
Sel. = 93%	
Pt–Re/TiO2	Stearic acid	20 bar, 130 °C, reactant 1.42 g, catalyst 0.5 g, 5 h	Conv. = 86%	104	
Sel. = 89%	
Pt–Re/TiO2	Methyl hexanoate	50 bar, 180 °C, reactant 0.4 mmol, catalyst 3 mg, 8 h	Conv. = 11%	106	
Sel. = 98%	
Pt–ReO2/TiO2	Hexanoic acid	50 bar, 130 °C, reactant 0.4 mol, catalyst 2 g, 5 h	Conv. = 95%	107	
Yield = 92%	
Re–Pd/SiO2	Stearic acid	80 bar, 130 °C, reactant 1 g, catalyst 0.15 g, 9 h	Conv. = 7.9%	89	
Yield = 97%	
ReOx/TiO2	Stearic acid	40 bar, 200 °C, reactant 1 g, catalyst 0.1 g	Conv. = 80%	78	
Sel. = 93%	
Re/Nb/Al2O3	Palm methyl ester	70 bar, 280 °C, 10 h	Conv. = 90%	108	
Sel. = 79%	
Ni–Re/SBA-15	Stearic acid	40 bar, 150 °C, reactant 0.1 g, catalyst 0.02 g, 5 h	Conv. = 100%	109	
Sel. = 94.5	
Ru–Sn/Al2O3	Methyl laurate	60 bar, 300 °C, reactant 40 g, catalyst 0.8 g, 4 h	Conv. = 56.9%	110	
Sel. = 18.3%	
Ru–Sn/Al2O3	Methyl oleate	80 bar, 270 °C, reactant 100 ml, catalyst 2.2 g	Conv. = 70%	111	
Sel. = 73%	
Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3	Oleic acid	53 bar, 300 °C, 1 h	Conv. = 50%	112	
Sel. = 15%	
Ru/NH2-rGO	Palmitic acid	100 bar, 210 °C, reactant 0.04 g, catalyst 0.025 g, 22 h	Conv. = 99%	88	
Sel. = 93%	
RuSn/N–C	Stearic acid	50 bar, 140 °C, reactant 0.4 g, catalyst 0.1 g, 6 h	Conv. = 100%	105	
Sel. = 96%	
RuSn/ZnO	Octanoic acid	20 bar, 300 °C, catalyst 0.5 g, WHSV 2 h−1	Conv. = 99.4%	113	
Sel. = 93%	
Ru–MoOx/TiO2	Lauric acid	40 bar, 170 °C, reactant 0.065 g, catalyst 0.05 g, 7 h	Conv. = 99%	114	
Sel. = 82%	
Rh–Sn/Al2O3	Methyl laurate	60 bar, 300 °C, reactant 40 g, catalyst 0.8 g, 4 h	Conv. = 71.7%	110	
Sel. = 43.2%	
Rh–Sn–B/γ-Al2O3	Oleic acid	50.7 bar, 270 °C, reactant 3.5 g, catalyst 1 g, 2.5 h	Conv. = 100%	115	
Sel. = 94.4%	
Pd/CuZnAl	Methyl decanoate	20 bar, 200 °C, reactant 0.05 g, catalyst 0.05 g, 8 h	Conv. = 96.6%	116	
Sel. = 95.9%	

In the quest for lower-priced catalysts, transition metals have emerged as potential alternatives with higher abundance. In the production of petroleum-based fatty alcohols, homogeneous cobalt carbonyl was proposed for the hydroformylation reaction. A heterogeneous cobalt catalyst was also applied in the production of natural based fatty alcohols.

The cobalt-based catalyst showed high activity in FAMEs hydrogenation. Co/ZrO2 showed 96% selectivity in methyl laurate hydrogenation at 180 °C and 20 bar.117 Other reports showed high selectivity in ethyl palmitate hydrogenation, with 1-hexadecanol selectivity reaching 85.7% at 200 °C and 20 bar with a Co/ZrO2 catalyst.118 In some reports, cobalt was combined with tin in order to prevent excess hydrogenation and to selectively produce unsaturated alcohols. For instance, the application of CoSn/Al2O3 in the hydrogenation of methyl oleate at 270 °C and 80 bar was reported, and the selectivity of the heavy ester oleyl oleate was higher than oleyl alcohol.119 The preference for heavy ester was also observed in the hydrogenation of methyl oleate over CoSn/ZnO,120 and CoSnB/Al2O3.121

Aside from cobalt, nickel has also been mentioned for fatty alcohol production. The activity of a nickel catalyst (Ni-VOx/TiO2) in the hydrogenation of methyl palmitate was investigated under the following reaction conditions: methyl palmitate 0.1 g, catalyst 0.05 g at 220 °C. A maximum acetyl alcohol selectivity of 90% was attained after 7.5 h.122

Other than metal active sites, the selection of the catalyst also requires consideration of other aspects, such as the catalyst support, catalyst loading, and catalyst stability. Basically, the role of a catalyst support is to reduce the metal amount and produce active metal species. In heterogeneous catalysis, the support allows the metal particles to have mechanical and thermal stability. Furthermore, supports influence the overall catalytic properties, such as metal dispersion, particle size, and acidity.76,123 For the purpose of comparison, some studies have been attempted to investigate the nature of support in fatty alcohol formation.

Al2O3 is the most popular support, with excellent performance reported by many studies. The application of Al2O3 as a catalyst support provides some benefits for metal dispersion, thermal stability, and moderate acidity.121 Al2O3 displayed excellent activity compared to ZrO2 and MgO in the hydrogenation of lauric acid over copper catalysts.124 The conversion rates of lauric acid were determined as 53.9%, 96.9%, and 98.9% over Cu/ZrO2, Cu/MgO, and Cu/Al2O3 respectively. Aside from conversion, Al2O3 also surpassed ZrO2 and MgO in terms of the lauryl alcohol yield, with a yield of 99.2%. The authors argued that the excellent performance of the alumina support was on account of the higher dispersion, smaller particle size, and lower acidity. In addition, the higher acidity of ZrO2 was reported to induce the formation of the ester.

The superior activity of Al2O3 above several other supports was also mentioned in the study as being related to the support effect in the hydrogenation of methyl hexadecanoate over supported ruthenium tin catalysts.125 Al2O3 exhibited a superior activity of 86.4% conversion followed by SiO2 and TiO2. The change in conversion was related to ruthenium dispersion generated by the ruthenium-support interaction. However, the alcohol selectivity remained unaffected by the catalyst support alteration within the range of 83–86%.

Many other reports also presented the use of Al2O3, such as the hydrogenation of methyl laurate over Ru–Sn/Al2O3,110 hydrogenation of oleic acid over Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3,112 hydrogenation of lauric acid over Cu/Al2O3,124 stearic acid over Ni/Al2O3,126 methyl oleate over CoSn/Al2O3,121 octanoic acid over CuIn/Al2O3,127 and palmitic acid over Pt/Al2O3,128 hydrogenation of oleic acid over Rh–Sn–B/Al2O3,115 hydrogenation of palm methyl ester over Re/Nb/Al2O3,108 and palmitic acid over Ni/Al2O3.129

SiO2 is also a common catalyst support applied in some works related to fatty alcohol production. This catalyst support was reported to have similar activity in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over nickel-supported catalysts. Both SiO2 and Al2O3 exhibited 41% conversion after 360 min reaction. However, SiO2 produced stearyl alcohol with three times selectivity for Al2O3. On the other hand, a similar trend for the selectivity of stearyl alcohol was generated from the hydrogenation of methyl palmitate over Ru–Sn/Al2O3 and Ru–Sn/SiO2.110 The exquisite performance of SiO2 as a catalyst support was mentioned in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Re–Pd/SiO2 (ref. 89) and methyl acetate over Cu/SiO2,71 methyl octanoate over NiIn/SiO2,77 and oleic acid over NiFe/SiO2–ZrO2.130

Another promising support is TiO2 with medium acidity–basicity that could be expected to inhibit the formation of heavy ester. The role of the support TiO2 in Pt–Re activity was investigated in methyl hexanoate hydrogenation with varied catalyst supports, including TiO2, Al2O3, CeO2, ZrO2, CeZrO2, and carbon.106 The highest conversion was generated from Pt–Re supported on TiO2 followed by Al2O3. Another TiO2 application was mentioned in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Pt/TiO2,103 methyl palmitate over Ni–VOx/TiO2,122 stearic acid over Ni3Fe/R–TiO2,87 stearic acid over Pt–Re/TiO2,104 and lauric acid over Ru–MoOx/TiO2.114

Furthermore, other mentioned catalyst supports include H-ZSM-5, ZrO2, Al-incorporated silica molecular sieve AlSBA-15, silicoaluminophosphate SAPO-11, and carbon.105,109,126,131–133

Apart from the metal active site and support, the influence of the catalyst mass is the least reported. The observed impact of the catalyst mass in the conversion and product distribution varies from one report to the next. Predominantly, the conversion increases with the catalyst mass. The influence of the mass of Pt–Re/TiO2 was investigated in the hydrogenation of hexanoic acid at 180 °C, 50 bar, and 125 mg hexanoic acid.106 Less than 10% hexanoic acid was converted over 3 mg catalyst, but it was fully converted when the catalyst addition was 18 mg. A significant impact of the catalyst mass was also observed in the hydrogenation of lauric acid over Cu/Al2O3.124 The reaction was performed at 330 °C for 3 h with 50 mg of lauric acid and catalyst mass was varied from 0–15 mg. Hexanoic acid was continuously converted from 15.6% to 98.9%. The same impact was observed in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Ni/Al2O3,126 sunflower oil over CuZn,85 oleic acid over Co–CoOxAl2O3,81 and with Co catalyst.134

Nevertheless, the opposite effect was reported for methyl hexanoate hydrogenation over Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3.125 The impact of the catalyst amount was negligible even when the catalyst mass was increased fourfold. Notably, a remarkable decrease in hexanol selectivity from around 85% to 30% occurred when the catalyst mass was double. A decline in fatty alcohol selectivity was also found in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Ni/Al2O3.126 The effect of the catalyst mass on stearyl alcohol selectivity was studied by altering the catalyst concentration from 0.1 to 0.75 (w/v%) under the following reaction conditions: concentration of stearic acid 0.018 mol, n-dodecane 100 ml, 270 °C, and 8 bar. Interestingly, heptadecane was the only product found with the 0.1 (w/v%) catalyst loading. The selectivity reached a maximum of 34.9% when the catalyst loading was doubled, but constantly decreased afterwards.

Fatty alcohol production involves many compounds, from the reactant and products, that can potentially deactivate the catalyst through poisoning, reoxidation, coking, and sintering. Deactivation of the catalyst may disturb the stability and the reusability, especially irreversible deactivation, which would permanently reduce the activity.

Some investigations of the catalyst stability have been reported by some studies. Takeda et al. assessed the stability of Re–Pd/SiO2 in the hydrogenation of stearic acid under the following conditions: reaction temperature 140 °C, pressure 80 bar, reaction time 1 h, catalyst amount 78.2 mg, stearic acid 0.7–1 g.135 The stability tests were performed with two different methods. First, the catalyst was dried in air for 12 h after separation from the reaction products by filtration and applied to the second reaction, followed by the third reaction afterwards. The result showed a significant decrease in catalytic activity with a conversion loss from 15% to 6%. The conversion rate also declined from 5.3 to 2.1 mmol gcat−1 h−1 while the stearyl alcohol selectivity remained stable at around 96–97%.

Second, the catalyst was separated by decantation after the reaction under nitrogen and applied to the second reaction straight away. The same procedure was repeated for the third reaction. Surprisingly, an insignificant loss was observed in the conversion, with a conversion of 18% for the first reaction and 16% for both the second and third reuse. The conversion rate was also slightly slower from 6 to 4.7 mmol gcat−1 h−1. Additionally, stearyl alcohol selectivity was also stable at 96–97%. These result imply that exposure of the catalyst to air induces the oxidation of Re active sites due to the high oxophicility of Re.

Excellent stability was also observed in NiFe catalysts applied in the hydrogenation of stearic acid at 250 °C and 50 bar for 2 h. For the sake of the reusability tests, the catalyst was separated by a permanent magnet and applied in several reaction cycles (Fig. 12). Obviously, it showed a slight loss in performance in the conversion of stearic acid and stearic alcohol selectivity. The XRD and XPS analyses indicated there were barely any changes in the spent catalyst compared to the catalyst in its original state.136 Similar results have been reported in other studies.88,107

Fig. 12 Reusability of the NiFe catalyst in several reaction cycles at 250 °C and under 50 bar for 2 h.136

Other catalyst have also exhibited excellent reusability for stearic acid hydrogenation at 235 °C and 30 bar for 2 h. The catalytic activity and selectivity to stearyl alcohol of Ni–MoOx/CeO2 decreased by 25% and 42%, respectively, after three recycling tests. ICP-OES-MS technique revealed the decreases in Ni and Mo species by 1.2 wt% and 1.9 wt% indicating the leaching of the metal species. XPS characterization confirmed that the metal species were oxidized after three cycles with lower amounts of Ni0 and higher amounts of Mo6+. Reactivating the spent catalyst improved the conversion and selectivity towards the alcohol product by 17% and 32%.109,137 Similar results were reported in another study.87

On the other hand, a significant loss of catalytic activity was observed in the reaction cycles for lauric acid hydrogenation over Cu/Al2O3.124 The yield of lauric acid remarkably dropped from 80% to 20% after the third reaction cycle. This trend was mirrored by the lauryl alcohol yield with a significant decline from 72.45% to 3% (Fig. 13). Unfortunately, insufficient data or further analysis was presented in the report to explain this phenomenon further.

Fig. 13 Conversion and product yields of lauric acid over Cu/Al2O3 after the first, second, and third catalyst use.124

3.3.2. Impact of the reaction conditions

The optimum conversion and selectivity in fatty alcohol production can be achieved by the application of appropriate reaction conditions. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the influence of the reaction conditions by altering the reaction temperature, hydrogen pressure, and solvent.

Apart from the catalyst design, the reaction conditions significantly determine the conversion and fatty alcohol selectivity. It is well known that increasing the reaction temperature will enhance the reaction rate, leading to a higher conversion. On the other hand, thermodynamic studies have implied that the equilibrium constant of fatty alcohol formation decreases with the rise in temperature. Excess hydrogenation is an endothermic reaction, whereby higher temperature would accelerate the formation of by-products and lower the selectivity of fatty alcohols. Consequently, a compromise between the overall reaction rate and the selectivity of alcohols should be considered.

In terms of conversion, the temperature has been predominantly reported to have a positive impact. Kumar et al. reported that the reaction time significantly affected the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Ni/Al2O3 15 wt%.126 The reaction was conducted under the following reaction conditions: concentration of stearic acid 0.18 kmol m−3, n-dodecane 100 ml, hydrogen pressure 8 bar, catalyst loading 0.5 (w/v%), in the range of temperature from 260 °C to 290 °C. The smallest conversion of 66% was achieved after 6 h at 260 °C, and complete conversion was obtained with a shorter reaction time of 4 h at 290 °C. Similar results were mentioned for the preparation of oleyl alcohol from methyl oleate over CoSn/Al2O3.121 At temperatures of 240 °C, 270 °C, and 300 °C, it was observed that the conversion increased as a function of the reaction temperature. The increase in temperature from 240 °C to 270 °C caused a rise in methyl oleate conversion from 50% to almost 100%. Raising the temperature up to 300 °C made the time required to achieve complete conversion even shorter from 12 h to 8 h. The dependence of stearic acid conversion on the reaction temperature was also reported in the hydrogenation of oleic acid over Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3 at various temperature from 250 °C to 400 °C.112 Furthermore, the relationship between the conversion and reaction temperature was mentioned in stearic acid hydrogenation over Re/TiO2 (ref. 78) and Pt/TiO2,103 methyl laurate over Co/ZrO2,117 and palm ester over Re/Nb2O5 (ref. 138) and Re/Nb/Al2O3.108

Generally, the reaction temperature improves the reaction rate. Increasing the temperature from 180 °C to 220 °C enhanced the reaction rate from 0.07 to 0.39 mol g−1 h−1 in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Re/TiO2, as observed in the first 30 min of reaction.78 A rate enhancement was also observed in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over 4% Pt/TiO2 at various temperature of 110 °C to 180 °C. Raising the temperature from 110 °C to 180 °C elevated the reaction rate from 0.0005 to 0.0025 mol g−1 h−1.103 A higher reaction rate, constant as a function of reaction time, was also found in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Ni/Al2O3 in the range of temperature between 260–290 °C. About ten times an enhancement of the reaction rate constant was mentioned when the reaction temperature was raised from 260 °C to 290 °C.126

In contrast, the opposite behaviour was observed with the selectivity of fatty alcohol in the hydrogenation of oleic acid over Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3. For the purpose of comparison, the reaction temperature was altered from 250 °C to 400 °C under the same reaction conditions. The maximum alcohol selectivity of 45% was generated at 300 °C and constantly decreased until it was completely diminished at 400 °C.112 Notably, other reports also reported that the selectivity of alcohol started to decrease at temperatures above 300 °C. Above this point, the selectivity of alkane and wax ester became more favourable.114,122

The maximum temperature for the highest alcohol selectivity varied in some studies. A 90% stearyl alcohol selectivity was achieved at 200 °C with 80% conversion in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Re/TiO2.78 A lower reaction temperature of 180 °C showed the maximum stearyl alcohol selectivity of 93%, yet at much smaller conversion of 30%. However, a lower reaction temperature has the consequence of a slow reaction rate and/or low conversion.

Hydrogen pressure crucially influences the product distribution as well as the reaction pathways. A high reaction pressure is required to drive the reaction in a hydrodeoxygenation route; whereas a lower hydrogen pressure initiates the formation of alkanes, as decarboxylation and/or decarbonylation become more favourable. High hydrogen coverage on the catalyst surface permits the hydride to insert into carboxylic acid group followed by water release. However, an excessively higher hydrogen pressure leads to excess hydrogenation.

In accordance with the reaction temperature, the hydrogen pressure was also taken into account for the conversion and reaction rate. Increasing the hydrogen pressure from 20 bar to 40 bar resulted in a rise in conversion from 40% to 70% in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Re/TiO2, after only 30 min reaction.78 Additionally, the conversion of oleic acid over Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3 continuously increased as a function of hydrogen pressure. The variation of pressure from 17.3 to 70 bar raised oleic acid conversion from 30% to 75%.112 The dependence of the reaction rate and conversion on the hydrogen pressure was also reported in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Re–Pd/SiO2 (ref. 89) and RuSn/N–C,105 oleic acid over CuIn/Al2O3 (with co catalyst In2O3)127 and NiFe/SiO2–ZrO2.130 On the other hand, the increase in methyl oleate conversion over CoSn/Al2O3 only occurred from 40 to 60 bar, and only a negligible change was observed when the pressure was increased to 100 bar.119

Hydrogen pressure plays a crucial role on fatty alcohol selectivity since an appropriate hydrogen amount should be available to drive the reaction to favour fatty alcohol. The hydrogen pressure was reported to maintain a high selectivity of stearyl alcohol in the hydrodeoxygenation of stearyl alcohol over ReO/TiO2.78 The highest stearyl alcohol selectivity of 93% was achieved at 20 bar with 80% conversion. The increase in pressure to 40 bar led to the complete conversion with the same stearyl alcohol selectivity. An insignificant addition of oleyl alcohol was noticed when the pressure was increased from 17.3 to 53 bar in the hydrogenation of methyl oleate.119 However, the oleyl alcohol started to decline beyond that point. The dependence of alcohol selectivity on the hydrogen pressure can be found in several studies.77,127,129

Furthermore, the hydrogen pressure also suppresses the formation of wax ester. The selectivity of heavy ester in the hydrogenation of oleic acid over Ru–Sn–B/Al2O3 was found to be constant at 25% in the range of hydrogen pressure of 17.3–53 bar.112 An increase in pressure from 53 to 70 bar inhibited the heavy ester formation for up to 15% selectivity. Therefore, the authors argued that the optimal hydrogen pressure was 35–50 bar in the respect of the fatty alcohol and wax ester formation. The inhibition of wax ester formation was also reported in the hydrogenation of stearic acid over Re/TiO2.78 The selectivity of stearyl stearate decreased as the pressure was increased from 20 to 40 bar. The same phenomenon was also found in the hydrogenation of methyl oleate.119 The selectivity of oleyl oleate declined when the pressure was constantly increased above 40 bar. Another study revealed a similar result.113

However, it has to be pointed out that the low formation of wax ester due to the increased pressure was often accompanied by the formation of alkanes. At higher pressure, the excess hydrogenation of alcohol was preferable compared to the esterification of alcohol with acids. The second explanation was that heavy ester can be hydrogenated to form alkane and alcohol, whereby higher pressure enhances the rate of these pathways compared to the wax ester formation.119

In summary, the catalyst and reaction conditions, including temperature and pressure, determine the reaction pathway and subsequent product distribution. An appropriate selection of the catalyst and the reaction conditions must be considered thoroughly in regards to the desired product, since the fatty alcohols are also the intermediates of green diesel formation, as described in more detail in the next sub section.

4. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA)

Life cycle assessment analyses the environmental impacts of a product in every stage (from cradle to grave), such as raw material procurement – processing, manufacturing – packaging, usage/application, and disposal. This assessment aims at excellent decision-making for the overall production process with ensuring effectives cost and meeting all regulatory/mandated requirements. The LCA method is standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) under code 14044-14073. This method comprises four steps: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact analysis, and interpretation.139,140

In general, the oleochemical life cycle consists of four stages with interconnected impacts on the environment and society (Fig. 14).141 The cycle starts with the raw material procurement through biomass cultivation. This stage involves land preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, and collection. The second stage is the production of oleochemicals through several reactions, such as pyrolysis, hydrogenation, transesterification, and hydrolysis. Afterward, the products pass through the packaging process and enter the usage phase (stage 3). Mostly, oleochemical product are widely applied in several industries as detergents, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, lubricants, biofuel, etc. The waste produced throughout the lifecycle is treated in the last stage with several options possible depending on the type of the waste, including recycling or disposal in a regulated manner.

Fig. 14 Lifecycle of oleochemicals.

The LCA of oleochemicals determines the use of materials, land usage, energy consumption, waste production throughout the process and over the overall lifetime of the products.141 The environmental impact is rationalized using several metrics, including global warming potentials (kg CO2), cumulative energy demand, eco indicators, and internal rate of return (IRR).142,143Fig. 15 describes the LCA metrics of oleochemicals for Kao (Japan) in 2023.144 The highest energy was required for the manufacturing process, and GHG emissions resulted from the material procurement, equating to 4103.9 thousand tons CO2.

Fig. 15 LCA metrics of oleochemicals by Kao.144

Several other LCA metrics by the oleochemical industries are mentioned in Table 6. As the highest oleochemical supplier in the world, Wilmar international consumes the highest energy and produces the most waste. Even though BASF came as the runner up, their GHG emissions were much higher than for Wilmar International. Meanwhile, Green Oleo exhibited a much lower scores in every metric due to their smaller production scale.

LCA metrics of the major oleochemical businesses in 2023

Companies	GHG emission (tons CO2)	Water consumption	Energy consumption (MW h)	Total waste (MT)	Ref.	
Green Oleo S.p.A	17 437.5	167.928 m3	0.009589	0.63945	145	
Wilmar International Limited	13 900 000	4.21 m3 MT−1 FFB	57 833 419	3 596 592	146	
BASF	85 000 000	67 000 000 m3	50 100 000	1 420 000	147	

Apart from life cycle assessment, techno-economic analysis is also used to defines the feasibility of oleochemical production. This analysis plays a significant role in determining the opportunity to develop up to the industrial scale based up lab-scale or pilot-scale data.148 TEA is applied to bridge the technical perspective and economic feasibility involving the cash flow analysis, market analysis, environmental cost assessment, technology assessment, and sensitivity analysis.141 In detail, capital cashflow includes the scale, initial investment, operational investments, operational profit, and annual profit.142 TEA also considers several aspects of feedstock supply and logistics, the conversion process, use stage, market impacts, and relevant policies/regulations.148

The TEA evaluates the capital cost, operating cost, mass balance, and energy balance.141 The result focuses on the process optimization with certain concerns about the total cost of investment, annual operating cost, and minimum product selling price.148 The metrics of the TEA are based around the net present value (NPV), internal rate return (IRR), dynamic payback period, revenue, gross margin, return of investment, etc.142,143,148

Fig. 16 exhibits the TEA of the volatile fatty acid (VFA) production from food waste and grass through anaerobic digestion.149 This result represents the economic feasibility according a consideration of the NPV, revenue, capital expenditure (CapEx), operational expenditure (OpEx), and energy costs. In terms of profitability, it can be seen that the pilot scale was unable to provide a profitable system, as inferred by the NPV of less than zero, even though the theoretical yield confirmed otherwise. It was also claimed that the revenue and OpEx varied due to the raw material procurement, in which grass incurred a higher cost. Further analysis from this study implied that a 30% increase in the selling price and pilot-scale improvement would be beneficial to attain economic feasibility.

Fig. 16 TEA result for volatile fatty acid production from food waste and grass through anaerobic digestion.149

5. Future outlook

Oleochemicals are among the most promising substitutes for petrochemicals on account of their functional efficiency, high performance, and sustainability. Since petrochemicals represent the third largest contributor to oil and gas demand, with 3.7 mb/d, the rapid development of oleochemicals by other means could be expected to reduce the global dependence on petrochemicals significantly.1

The current development of oleochemicals has been studied in many outlook documents. The global markets of oleochemicals are spread out all over the world, as depicted in Fig. 17.150 This vast growing market of oleochemicals is supported by political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environment factors. The awareness of climate change and the demand for environmentally friendly products remain as the roots of this support. In 2023, the global market for oleochemicals reached USD 24.4 billion. This market was dominated by Asia-Pacific with a 41.5% revenue share due to the existence of the largest oleochemical producers in this region, i.e. Indonesia and Malaysia. The key players in the oleochemicals markets include Eastman Chemical Company, Kao Corporation, BASF SE, Wilmar International, Emery Oleochemicals, Oleon NV, KLK Oleo, Musim Mas Group, Croda, International, IOI Group, and Procter & Gamble Co.150–152

Fig. 17 Global market for oleochemicals.

Fig. 18 elaborates the growing demand for oleochemicals by type, application, and region. In terms of the oleochemical types, fatty acids still dominate the market with over fatty alcohols, glycerol, fatty acid methyl ester, and others.151 Fatty acids contributed the highest share of 49% in 2023.152 Oleochemicals are mostly applied in pharmaceuticals, followed by personal care and cosmetics, food and beverages, as well as soaps and detergents. It has been claimed that North America is greatest consumer of oleochemicals, but other report mentioned that Asia-Pacific has both the highest production and highest consumption at the same time.150,151

Fig. 18 Oleochemical demand by type, application, and region.

Individually, several reports have stated there is a continuous increasing market demand for all oleochemicals. The fatty acids market size increased from USD 23.2 billion dollars in 2023 to 24.5 billion in 2024. This number is forecast to reach 34.2 billion dollars in 2032 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.73%. This increase is encouraged by the increasing demand for fatty acids for several applications, such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, as well as cleaning supplies, including soaps, detergents, bleaches, and cleaners.153 On the other hand, the global market for FAME was valued at USD 23.3 billion in 2024. Net zero emission policies have accelerated the demand for fatty acid methyl ester for biodiesel application. The promising properties of FAME also result in a wide range of uses in lubricants, coatings, food, and agriculture.154 The fatty alcohol market demand is the lowest one, amounting to USD 5.46 billion dollars in 2023 and estimated to reach 5.71 billion in 2024. This increase is especially driven by escalating demands from the detergents and cosmetics industries.155

On the forecast trajectory, overall the oleochemicals market is projected to reach 52.27 billion in 2031, with a predicted CAGR in the range of 7.5%. This value is supported by the swift growth in oleochemicals, especially fatty alcohol with a CAGR of 8.6%. The application of oleochemicals will be dominated by the personal care and cosmetics markets. In terms of producers, the same companies will maintain their position as the key players.1,150–152

Nevertheless, the success story of oleochemicals is still facing some challenges to address in both the short and long term. The main issue is oleochemical production still heavily depends on the feedstock price and availability. Palm oil is still the top feedstock, despite the environmental issues associated with palm plantation. The shift of feedstock to non-edible oil will ultimately need to be addressed. Another environmental concern highlights the inevitable demand to conduct more environmentally friendly processing. For instance, fatty alcohol production still relies on Cr-based catalysts, which can have adverse effects on the environment. To date, some studies have reported alternative catalysts to replace the current CuCr-based catalyst with excellent activity. However, the ideal catalyst has not been achieved yet, since the most developed catalyst is centred on the application of noble metals, which is undesirable from an economic point of view.

6. Conclusions

Biomass, especially natural oil, is a promising feedstock for petrochemical on account of its similar chemical structure with long-chain hydrocarbons, thus allowing creating a substitute product termed oleochemicals. The triglycerides in the natural oil can be transformed into three basic oleochemicals, namely fatty acids, fatty acid methyl ester (FAME), and fatty alcohols, through hydrogenation and transesterification, respectively. These basic oleochemicals are the feedstock of many important chemicals, such as fatty alcohol and green diesel. Fatty alcohol can be obtained from fatty acids, fatty acid methyl ester, and direct natural oil via deoxygenation involving several pathways, including hydrodeoxygenation, decarboxylation, and decarbonylation. Overall, the production of oleochemicals is significantly influenced by the catalyst design (active site, support, and properties) and reaction conditions (pressure, temperature, reaction time, etc.).

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. No primary research results, software or code has been included and no new data were generated or analysed as part of this review.

Author contributions

ZR (conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing, funding acquisition); LS (methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, writing – original draft); WNWA (resources, visualization, writing – review & editing); YLN (investigation, visualization, writing – review & editing) AH (investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing); NLAJ (investigation, writing – review & editing, resources), DS (project administration, investigation, writing – review & editing) AAW (supervision, conceptualization).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember for this work, under project scheme of the Publication Writing and IPR Incentive Program (PPHKI) 2024.
==== Refs
References

Akizuki Y. , Bressers A. , Couse J. , Healy C. , Mackey P. , Martin D. , Messing J. , Thomson J. , Canu J. , Fernando Rosa L. , Bosoni T. , Sadamori K. , Mooneesawmy D. , Arsalane Y. , Blasi A. , Cozzi L. , Frankl P. , Gould T. , Grimal P. , Hilaire J. , McGlade C. , Moorhouse J. , Petropoulos A. and Tonolo G. , Oil 2023: Analysis and Forecast to 2028, 2023
Hoang A. T. Tabatabaei M. Aghbashlo M. Carlucci A. P. Ölçer A. I. Le A. T. Ghassemi A. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2021 135 110204 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110204
Carlsson A. S. Biochimie 2009 91 665 670 10.1016/j.biochi.2009.03.021 19375482
Alkazimi M. , Spitzy J. , Benmerabet M. , Salo R. , Guerer N. , Etiobhio I. , Ban J. , Vafaie Fard E. , Aliefendic H. , Sugungun M. , Walker J. , Tallett M. , Bock-Butler A. , Kaditi E. , McKirdy D. , Baikalizadeh B. , AlSeiari B. , Zarie Zare M. , Mekerba M. , Hassani H. , Balfakeih H. , Danesh M. A. , Sariahmed Y. , Yahyai A. , Christodoulides P. , Eichner H. , Kammerer R. , Stoeger K. , Sattar M. , Arifin Z. , Mihnev M. and Pelenis J. , 2020 World Oil Outlook 2045, Vienna, Autria, 2020
de Vries J. G. Curr. Opin. Green Sustainable Chem. 2023 39 100715 10.1016/j.cogsc.2022.100715
Maher K. D. Bressler D. C. Bioresour. Technol. 2007 98 2351 2368 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.10.025 17166713
Liu B. Zhang Z. ACS Catal. 2016 6 326 338 10.1021/acscatal.5b02094
Corma A. Iborra S. Velty A. Chem. Rev. 2007 107 2411 2502 10.1021/cr050989d 17535020
Gundekari S. , Mitra J. and Varkolu M. , in Advanced Functional Solid Catalysts for Biomass Valorization, ed. C. Mustansar Hussain and P. Sudarsanam, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 89–120
Deng W. Feng Y. Fu J. Guo H. Guo Y. Han B. Jiang Z. Kong L. Li C. Liu H. Nguyen P. T. T. Ren P. Wang F. Wang S. Wang Y. Wang Y. Wong S. S. Yan K. Yan N. Yang X. Zhang Y. Zhang Z. Zeng X. Zhou H. Green Energy Environ. 2023 8 10 114 10.1016/j.gee.2022.07.003
Bukowski M. , Swearingen B. and Vaiknoras K. , Oil Crops Outlook: May 2024, 2024
Gharby S. Sci. World J. 2022 2022 6627013
Wen C. Shen M. Liu G. Liu X. Liang L. Li Y. Zhang J. Xu X. Process Biochem. 2023 124 168 179 10.1016/j.procbio.2022.11.017
Manjula S. Subramanian R. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2009 66 223 228 10.1016/j.seppur.2009.01.004
Liu X. Wang W. Xu L. Li Z. Xu Q. Yang B. Lan D. Wang Y. LWT-Ed. 2023 185 115126 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115126
Ghazani S. M. Marangoni A. G. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2013 90 923 932 10.1007/s11746-013-2254-8
Wang W. Yang B. Huang F. Zheng C. Li W. Liu T. Liu C. LWT-Ed. 2022 168 113939 10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113939
Gharby S. Hajib A. Ibourki M. Sakar E. H. Nounah I. EL Moudden H. Elibrahimi M. Harhar H. Chem. Data Collect. 2021 33 100702 10.1016/j.cdc.2021.100702
Gupta M. K. , in Practical Guide to Vegetable Oil Processing, ed. M. K. Gupta, AOCS Press, 2nd edn, 2017, pp. 7–25
Romero M. J. A. Duca D. Toscano G. Processes 2022 47 62 68
Smith B. Greenwell H. C. Whiting A. Energy Environ. Sci. 2009 2 262 271 10.1039/B814123A
Giraldo L. Camargo G. Tirano J. Moreno-Piraján J. C. J. Chem. 2010 7 439801
Sánchez M. A. Torres G. C. Mazzieri V. A. Pieck C. L. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2017 92 27 42 10.1002/jctb.5039
Ramos M. Dias A. P. S. Puna J. F. Gomes J. Bordado J. C. Energies 2019 12 4408 10.3390/en12234408
Esmi F. Borugadda V. B. Dalai A. K. Catal. Today 2022 404 19 34 10.1016/j.cattod.2022.01.019
Gallezot P. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012 41 1538 1558 10.1039/C1CS15147A 21909591
Chen K.-S. Lin Y.-C. Hsu K.-H. Wang H.-K. Energy 2012 38 151 156 10.1016/j.energy.2011.12.020
Janampelli S. Darbha S. Catal. Surv. Asia 2019 23 90 101 10.1007/s10563-019-09266-4
Naji S. Z. Tye C. T. Abd A. A. Process Biochem. 2021 109 148 168 10.1016/j.procbio.2021.06.020
V Yate A. Narváez P. C. Orjuela A. Hernández A. Acevedo H. Food Bioprod. Process. 2020 122 72 81 10.1016/j.fbp.2020.04.001
Song W. , Apointe R. and Guo M. , in Practices and Perspectives in Sustainable Bioenergy: A Systems Thinking Approach, ed. M. Mitra and A. Nagchaudhuri, Springer India, New Delhi, 2020, pp. 57–73
Black H. C. , Baldwin W. S. , Wittcoff H. , McCorkle M. R. , Du Brow P. L. , Zinzalian G. , Aylesworth R. D. , Dhonau R. H. , Stegemeyer L. A. and Shibe W. J. , Fatty Acids for Chemical Specialties, New York, 1955
Gamal M. S. Asikin-Mijan N. Khalit W. N. A. W. Arumugam M. Izham S. M. Taufiq-Yap Y. H. Fuel Process. Technol. 2020 208 106519 10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106519
Rustan A. C. and Drevon C. A. , Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, Oslo, 2005, pp. 1–7
Stavila E. Yuliati F. Adharis A. Laksmono J. A. Iqbal M. RSC Adv. 2023 13 14747 14775 10.1039/D3RA01913F 37197178
Nitbani F. O. Tjitda P. J. P. Nurohmah B. A. Wogo H. E. J. Oleo Sci. 2020 69 277 295 10.5650/jos.ess19168 32249258
Hongloi N. Prapainainar P. Prapainainar C. Mol. Catal. 2022 523 111696 10.1016/j.mcat.2021.111696
Nitbani F. O. Tjitda P. J. P. Wogo H. E. Detha A. I. R. J. Oleo Sci. 2022 71 781 793 10.5650/jos.ess21226 35661063
Leung D. Y. C. Wu X. Leung M. K. H. Appl. Energy 2010 87 1083 1095 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.006
V McNeff C. McNeff L. C. Yan B. Nowlan D. T. Rasmussen M. Gyberg A. E. Krohn B. J. Fedie R. L. Hoye T. R. Appl. Catal., A 2008 343 39 48 10.1016/j.apcata.2008.03.019
Cardoso C. C. Cavalcanti A. S. Silva R. O. Junior S. A. de Sousa F. P. Pasa V. M. D. Arias S. Pacheco J. G. A. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2020 31 756 767
Jung J.-M. Oh J.-I. Kwon D. Park Y.-K. Zhang M. Lee J. Kwon E. E. Energy Convers. Manage. 2019 195 1 6 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.095
Nisar S. Hanif M. A. Rashid U. Hanif A. Akhtar M. N. Ngamcharussrivichai C. Catalysts 2021 11 1085 10.3390/catal11091085
Martínez A. Mijangos G. E. Romero-Ibarra I. C. Hernández-Altamirano R. Mena-Cervantes V. Y. Fuel 2019 235 277 287 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.07.082
Guo F. Peng Z.-G. Dai J.-Y. Xiu Z.-L. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010 91 322 328 10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.11.003
Leung D. Y. C. Guo Y. Fuel Process. Technol. 2006 87 883 890 10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.06.003
Zhang Y. Niu S. Han K. Li Y. Lu C. Renewable Energy 2021 168 981 990 10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.132
Eevera T. Rajendran K. Saradha S. Renewable Energy 2009 34 762 765 10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.006
Qu T. Niu S. Gong Z. Han K. Wang Y. Lu C. Renewable Energy 2020 159 873 884 10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.009
Xiao Y. Liu Y. Zhang X. Hou J. Liu X. Yuan Y. Liao X. Catal. Commun. 2022 165 106448 10.1016/j.catcom.2022.106448
Taufiq-Yap Y. H. V Lee H. Hussein M. Z. Yunus R. Biomass Bioenergy 2011 35 827 834 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.011
Ben-Youssef C. Chávez-Yam A. Zepeda A. Rivera J. M. Rincón S. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021 18 3313 3326 10.1007/s13762-020-03088-y
Kouzu M. Kasuno T. Tajika M. Sugimoto Y. Yamanaka S. Hidaka J. Fuel 2008 87 2798 2806 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.10.019
Shrivastava S. Prajapati P. Virendra Srivastava P. Lodhi A. P. S. Kumar D. Sharma V. Srivastava S. K. Agarwal D. D. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023 192 116002 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.116002
Tantirungrotechai J. Thepwatee S. Yoosuk B. Fuel 2013 106 279 284 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.01.028
Ngamcharussrivichai C. Totarat P. Bunyakiat K. Appl. Catal., A 2008 341 77 85 10.1016/j.apcata.2008.02.020
Silva C. C. C. M. Ribeiro N. F. P. Souza M. M. V. M. Aranda D. A. G. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010 91 205 210 10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.09.019
Alba-Rubio A. C. Santamaría-González J. Mérida-Robles J. M. Moreno-Tost R. Martín-Alonso D. Jiménez-López A. Maireles-Torres P. Catal. Today 2010 149 281 287 10.1016/j.cattod.2009.06.024
Kouzu M. Yamanaka S. Hidaka J. Tsunomori M. Appl. Catal., A 2009 355 94 99 10.1016/j.apcata.2008.12.003
Kesica Z. Lukic I. Zdujic M. Liu H. Skala D. Procedia Eng. 2012 42 1169 1178 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.07.509
Endalew A. K. Kiros Y. Zanzi R. Energy 2011 36 2693 2700 10.1016/j.energy.2011.02.010
Patel A. Brahmkhatri V. Singh N. Renewable Energy 2013 51 227 233 10.1016/j.renene.2012.09.040
Wu H. Zhang J. Wei Q. Zheng J. Zhang J. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013 109 13 18 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.09.032
Tang Y. Xu J. Zhang J. Lu Y. J. Cleaner Prod. 2013 42 198 203 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.001
Dias A. P. S. Bernardo J. Felizardo P. Correia M. J. N. Fuel Process. Technol. 2012 102 146 155 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.04.039
Joshi H. Moser B. R. Toler J. Walker T. Biomass Bioenergy 2010 34 14 20 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.09.006
Xie W. Wang T. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013 109 150 155 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.09.053
Mahdi H. I. Bazargan A. McKay G. Azelee N. I. W. Meili L. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2021 174 158 187 10.1016/j.cherd.2021.07.009
Serrano-Ruiz J. C. Dumesic J. A. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011 4 83 99 10.1039/C0EE00436G
Li G. C. Anastas P. Gallezot P. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012 41 1538 1558 10.1039/C1CS15147A 21909591
Brands D. S. Poels E. K. Bliek A. Appl. Catal., A 1999 184 279 289 10.1016/S0926-860X(99)00106-4
Mudge S. M. , Belanger S. E. and Nielsen A. M. , Fatty Alcohols: Anthropogenic and Natural Occurrence in the Environment, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008
Valoppi F. , Calligaris S. and Marangoni A. G. , in Edible Oleogels, ed. A. G. Marangoni and N. Garti, AOCS Press, 2nd edn, 2018, pp. 219–234
Hill E. F. Wilson G. R. Steinle E. C. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1954 46 1917 1921 10.1021/ie50537a042
Sree R. Seshu Babu N. Sai Prasad P. S. Lingaiah N. Fuel Process. Technol. 2009 90 152 157 10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.08.008
Zhou Y. Remón J. Jiang Z. Matharu A. S. Hu C. Green Energy Environ. 2023 8 722 743 10.1016/j.gee.2022.03.001
Wang L. Niu X. Chen J. Appl. Catal., B 2020 278 119293 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119293
Rozmysłowicz B. Kirilin A. Aho A. Manyar H. Hardacre C. Wärnå J. Salmi T. Murzin D. Yu. J. Catal. 2015 328 197 207 10.1016/j.jcat.2015.01.003
Thakur D. S. Kundu A. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2016 93 1575 1593 10.1007/s11746-016-2902-x
Yue S. Ding X. Liu X. Guo Y. Wang Y. Catal. Today 2022 405–406 221 226 10.1016/j.cattod.2022.05.021
Chen Y. Zhang Y. Lin W. Cheng X. Wang J. Liu X. Charles Xu C. Nie R. Fuel 2023 345 128136 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128136
ChemAnalyst , Decode the Future of Fatty Alcohol, https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/fatty-alcohol-market-634, accessed 5 August 2024
Munkajohnpong P. Kesornpun C. Buttranon S. Jaroensuk J. Weeranoppanant N. Chaiyen P. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 2020 14 986 1009 10.1002/bbb.2112
Zarli A. , in Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, ed. A. Basile, G. Centi, M. De Falco and G. Iaquaniello, Elsevier, 2020, vol. 179 , pp. 77–95
Smirnov A. Wang W. Kikhtyanin O. Xiao L. Wu W. Kubička D. Catal. Today 2023 424 113841 10.1016/j.cattod.2022.07.009
Foley P. Kermanshahi pour A. Beach E. S. Zimmerman J. B. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012 41 1499 1518 10.1039/C1CS15217C 22006024
Long F. Wu S. Chen Y. Cao X. Zhao J. Liu P. Jiang J. Zhang X. Xu J. Chem. Eng. J. 2023 464 142773 10.1016/j.cej.2023.142773
Martínez-Prieto L. M. Puche M. Cerezo-Navarrete C. Chaudret B. J. Catal. 2019 377 429 437 10.1016/j.jcat.2019.07.040
Takeda Y. Tamura M. Nakagawa Y. Okumura K. Tomishige K. ACS Catal. 2015 5 7034 7047 10.1021/acscatal.5b01054
Andrade L. C. T. Muchave G. J. Maciel S. T. A. da Silva I. P. da Silva G. F. Almeida J. M. A. R. Aranda D. A. G. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2022 2022 6402004
Kikhtyanin O. Aubrecht J. Pospelova V. Kubička D. Catalysts 2021 11 1417 10.3390/catal11111417
Adkins H. , Folkers K. , Connor R. and Madison , US Pat., 2091800, 1937, pp. 1–4
Rieke R. D. Thakur D. S. Roberts B. D. White G. T. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1997 74 341 345 10.1007/s11746-997-0089-x
van den Hark S. Härröd M. Appl. Catal., A 2001 210 207 215 10.1016/S0926-860X(00)00826-7
van den Hark S. Härröd M. Møller P. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1999 76 1363 1370 10.1007/s11746-999-0151-y
Kandel K. Chaudhary U. Nelson N. C. Slowing I. I. ACS Catal. 2015 5 6719 6723 10.1021/acscatal.5b01664
Kanade K. G. Kale B. B. Aiyer R. C. Das B. K. Mater. Res. Bull. 2006 41 590 600 10.1016/j.materresbull.2005.09.002
Van De Scheur F. T. Staala L. H. Appl. Catal., A 1994 108 63 83 10.1016/0926-860X(94)85181-6
5345005, 1994
Gou X. Okejiri F. Zhang Z. Liu M. Liu J. Chen H. Chen K. Lu X. Ouyang P. Fu J. Fuel Process. Technol. 2020 205 106426 10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106426
Hattori Y. Yamamoto K. Kaita J. Matsuda M. Yamada S. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2000 77 1283 1288 10.1007/s11746-000-0202-6
6916457 B2, 2005
Manyar H. G. Paun C. Pilus R. Rooney D. W. Thompson J. M. Hardacre C. Chem. Commun. 2010 46 6279 6281 10.1039/C0CC01365J 20664876
Ralphs K. Collins G. Manyar H. James S. L. Hardacre C. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2022 10 6934 6941 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c07595
Ali A. Li B. Lu Y. Zhao C. Green Chem. 2019 21 3059 3064 10.1039/C9GC01260E
Liu K. Pritchard J. Lu L. van Putten R. (Tiny) Verhoeven M. W. G. M. Schmitkamp M. Huang X. Lefort L. Kiely C. J. Hensen E. J. M. Pidko E. A. Chem. Commun. 2017 53 9761 9764 10.1039/C7CC04759B 28813041
Suknev A. Zaikovskii V. Kaichev V. Paukshtis E. Sadovskaya E. Bal'Zhinimaev B. J. Energy Chem. 2015 24 646 654 10.1016/j.jechem.2015.09.003
Muchave G. J. Almeida J. M. A. R. Aranda D. A. G. Int. J. Sci. Res 2022 11 516 531
Cao X. Zhao J. Long F. Liu P. Jiang X. Zhang X. Xu J. Jiang J. Appl. Catal., B 2022 312 121437 10.1016/j.apcatb.2022.121437
Miyake T. Makino T. Taniguchi S. Watanuki H. Niki T. Shimizu S. Kojima Y. Sano M. Appl. Catal., A 2009 364 108 112 10.1016/j.apcata.2009.05.036
Pouilloux Y. Autin F. Guimon C. Barrault J. J. Catal. 1998 176 215 224 10.1006/jcat.1998.2044
Rodina V. O. Ermakov D. Yu. Saraev A. A. Reshetnikov S. I. Yakovlev V. A. Appl. Catal., B 2017 209 611 620 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.03.012
Hidajat M. J. Yun G.-N. Hwang D.-W. Mol. Catal. 2021 512 111770 10.1016/j.mcat.2021.111770
Rodiansono Dewi H. P. Mustikasari K. Astuti M. D. Husain S. Sutomo RSC Adv. 2022 12 13319 13329 10.1039/D2RA02103J 35520112
Fonseca Benítez C. A. Mazzieri V. A. Vera C. R. Benitez V. M. Pieck C. L. React. Chem. Eng. 2021 6 726 746 10.1039/D0RE00488J
Guo Z. Zhou F. Wang H. Liu X. Xu G. Zhang Y. Fu Y. Green Chem. 2019 21 5046 5052 10.1039/C9GC02379H
Zhou Y. Liu L. Li G. Hu C. ACS Catal. 2021 11 7099 7113 10.1021/acscatal.1c00632
Zhou Y. Liu X. Yu P. Hu C. Fuel 2020 278 118295 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118295
Pouilloux Y. Autin F. Piccirilli A. Guimon C. Barrault J. Appl. Catal., A 1998 169 65 75 10.1016/S0926-860X(97)00344-X
De Oliveira Vigier K. Pouilloux Y. Barrault J. Catal. Today 2012 195 71 75 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.04.027
Pouilloux Y. Autin F. Barrault J. Catal. Today 2000 63 87 100 10.1016/S0920-5861(00)00448-X
Cao X. Long F. Zhang G. Xu J. Jiang J. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021 9 9789 9801 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c02181
Busca G. , in Heterogeneous Catalytic Materials, ed. G. Busca, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2014, pp. 297–343
Zhang Z. Zhou F. Chen K. Fu J. Lu X. Ouyang P. Energy Fuels 2017 31 12624 12632 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01621
Deshpande V. M. Patterson W. R. Narasimhan C. S. J. Catal. 1990 121 165 173 10.1016/0021-9517(90)90226-A
Kumar P. Yenumala S. R. Maity S. K. Shee D. Appl. Catal., A 2014 471 28 38 10.1016/j.apcata.2013.11.021
Onyestyák G. Harnos S. Kalló D. Catal. Commun. 2012 26 19 24 10.1016/j.catcom.2012.04.023
Zhou L. Lawal A. Appl. Catal., A 2017 532 40 49 10.1016/j.apcata.2016.12.014
Chen J. Wang D. Luo F. Yang X. Li X. Li S. Ye Y. Wang D. Zheng Z. Fuel 2022 314 122780 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122780
Wang F. Yu S. Xu H. Feng J. Guo F. Jiang X. Jiang J. Fuel 2023 345 128170 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128170
Ni J. Leng W. Mao J. Wang J. Lin J. Jiang D. Li X. Appl. Catal., B 2019 253 170 178 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.04.043
Rozmysłowicz B. Mäki-Arvela P. Tokarev A. Leino A.-R. Eränen K. Murzin D. Yu. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012 51 8922 8927 10.1021/ie202421x
Qian E. W. Chen N. Gong S. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014 387 76 85 10.1016/j.molcata.2014.02.031
Wang J. Nie R. Xu L. Lyu X. Lu X. Green Chem. 2019 21 314 320 10.1039/C8GC03075H
Takeda Y. Nakagawa Y. Tomishige K. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2012 2 2221 2223 10.1039/C2CY20302B
Kong X. Fang Z. Bao X. Wang Z. Mao S. Wang Y. J. Catal. 2018 367 139 149 10.1016/j.jcat.2018.08.022
Cao X. Long F. Zhai Q. Zhao J. Xu J. Jiang J. Fuel 2021 298 120829 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120829
Muchave G. J. Almeida J. M. A. R. Aranda D. A. G. Int. J. Drug Dev. Res. 2022 12 56082 56089
Watkins C. , Boakye P. G. , Jones K. C. , Latona N. , Liu C. , Besong S. A. , Lumor S. E. , Wyatt V. T. , Joseph K. E. , Krumm C. , Jimenez-penalver P. , Font X. , Gea T. , Dolman B. and Winterburn J. , IFORM: International News on Fats, Oils, and Related Materials, AOCS Press, 5th edn, 2017, vol. 28
European Commission Joint Research Center , International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Provision and Action Steps, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 1st edn, 2010
Osman A. I. Fang B. Zhang Y. Liu Y. Yu J. Farghali M. Rashwan A. K. Chen Z. Chen L. Ihara I. Rooney D. W. Yap P. S. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024 22 1115 1154 10.1007/s10311-023-01694-z
Chen S. Feng H. Zheng J. Ye J. Song Y. Yang H. Zhou M. Processes 2020 8 122780
Zheng J. L. Zhu Y. H. Zhu M. Q. Sun G. T. Sun R. C. Green Chem. 2018 20 3287 3301 10.1039/C8GC01181H
Sustainability Report 2023, Kao Group, Tokyo, 2023
Sustainability Report, Green Oleo S.p.A., Cremona, 2024
Annual Sustainability Report 2023, Wilmar International Limited, Singapore, 2024
dos Santos G. U. , Leenknecht R. and Yang Z. M. , BASF Sustainability Report, 2023, Ludwigshafen, 2024
Scown C. D. Baral N. R. Yang M. Vora N. Huntington T. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021 67 58 64 10.1016/j.copbio.2021.01.002 33477090
Pinto A. S. S. McDonald L. J. Jones R. J. Massanet-Nicolau J. Guwy A. McManus M. Bioresour. Technol. 2023 388 129726 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129726 37690217
Analytica A. , Global Oleochemicals Market: Industry Dynamics, Market Size, and Opportunity Forecast 2023-2031, https://www.astuteanalytica.com/industry-report/oleochemicals-market, accessed 29 June 2023
Moon S. , Sayyad A. and Prasad E. , Oleochemical Market: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast 2021-2030, Portland, 2023
Oleochemicals Market Size , Share and Industry Analysis, by Type, Application, and Regional Forecast 2023-2030, San Fransisco, 2023
Nandi P. , Global Fatty Acid Market Overview, New York, 2024
Global Fatty Acid Methyl Ester Market 2024–2033, https://www.custommarketinsights.com/report/fatty-acid-methyl-ester-market/, accessed July, 2024
Fatty Alcohols Market by Source (Natural, synthetic), Type (Higher Chain, Long Chain, Pure, and Mid Cut), End-Use-Global Forecast 2024-2030, Tokyo, 2024
