Abstract
Biomass pyrolysis is one of the beneficial sources of the production of sustainable bio-oil. Currently, marketable bio-oil plants are scarce because of the complex operations and lower profits. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehend the relationship between technological parameters and economic practicality. This review outlines the technical and economical routine to produce bio-oils from various biomass by fast pyrolysis. Explicit pointers were compared, such as production cost, capacity, and biomass type for bio-oil production. The bio-oil production cost is crucial for evaluating the market compatibility with other biofuels available. Different pretreatments, upgrades and recycling processes influenced production costs. Using an energy integration strategy, it is possible to produce bio-oil from biomass pyrolysis. The findings of this study might lead to bio-oil industry-related research aimed at commercializing the product.
Introduction
Biomass is becoming the most promising alternative source for producing clean and sustainable products, because of its communal availability, relatively lower price, and zero harmful emissions (). According to a report, biomass accessibility is abundant for biofuel production worldwide (Trinh et al., 2020). Bioenergy is the energy derived from the different sources of biomass (). Biomass originates from microbes and vegetation (). It comprises all the organic and biological constituents from living organisms produced by direct or indirect processing (Nachenius et al., 2013). It can be classified further into agriculture biomass, forestry biomass, crops, wood-based biomass, municipal and industrial waste, food waste, animal and human-generated waste. Biomass is the fourth primary energy source and currently delivers 14% of prime energy (Tabakaev et al., 2019). Biomass can be transformed into biofuels through biological and thermal conversion approaches. On the other hand, the biological conversion approach is unstable at the commercial level because it employs all stresses on food-based raw materials (Naik et al., 2010). On the other hand, the thermal conversion approach, such as pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion, has a wide range of raw materials in a shorter period and deals with multiple and intricate biofuels (; Shahbaz et al., 2016; ; ). These biofuels have variations in physicochemical composition and properties, which helps deal with unique practical and economic challenges (Shemfe et al., 2015).
Fast pyrolysis is considered the most promising approach to generate liquid fuel, such as bio-oil, at its maximum extent among all these thermal conversion methods. According to an estimate, fast pyrolysis can produce up to 75 wt% bio-oil, which can be used in many applications directly or as an energy carrier after upgradation (). Fast pyrolysis is a suitable process for converting biomass into bio-oil in an inert atmosphere at the medium temperature range from 400 to 600 C using a short residence time of approximately 2–10 s and higher heating rates. Various conditions, such as raw material, reactor type, temperature, additives, catalysts, residence time, and pressure, greatly influence the performance and quality of the product (Zhang et al., 2011). Bio-oil obtained from fast pyrolysis contains oxygenated organic compounds and water, making it unstable and corrosive. Therefore, upgrading is necessary for deoxygenation to make it compatible with refinery fuels (Sorunmu et al., 2020).
Many research articles have been published on optimizing bio-oil production from various biomass using a fast pyrolysis process under different operating conditions (; Nzihou et al., 2019; Marathe et al., 2020). On the other hand, there is a lack of information on economic analysis comparison on fast pyrolysis process to make it commercially stable. The commercial practicability of bio-oil is based on reducing the manufacturing cost, enhancing the product quality, and improving accessibility to an abundant and sustainable source of biomass. Economic analysis is a helpful strategy to assess the potential of the process to scale up using product cost prediction (). Economic analysis can be done using different approaches with an experimental study and developed mathematical models to make any process feasible at the market level (Zhang et al., 2013). Literature showed many research papers and case studies published on the economic analysis of pyrolysis used for bio-char and bio-oil production. There is a need to provide a platform specifically for economics analysis and cost of the bio-oil output using a fast pyrolysis process. This work aims to provide valuable information on the economic evaluation of bio-oil produced by different biomass via the fast pyrolysis process.
Bio-Oil Production via Fast Pyrolysis
Fast pyrolysis is a technique of changing different biomass types in the absence of air or O2 to generate three types of products based on their nature, i.e., solid char, liquid oil, and volatile gas, by thermal breakdown of the material. Pyrolytic gas is generated in this process. A dark brown homogenous liquid is produced with a high heating value known as bio-oil upon cooling and condensing. Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of biomass pyrolysis (). Three main products (biochar, bio-oil, and syngas) are produced from the fast pyrolysis of biomass. Bio-oil can be used as a fuel in engines and boilers, used further for electricity and heat production via combined heat and power (CHP) plants. This temperature range of this process is typically 350–600°C, but the temperature for the maximum yield is most commonly around 500°C; the residence time is shorter, approximately 2 s, and the heating rate is higher (Wang and Jan 2018). The biomass should be dried to the level of less than 10% moisture and ground to fine particles for optimal yield and improved bio-oil quality. Bio-oil produced from fast pyrolysis usually contains 15 to 30 wt% water, reducing its viscosity and making it capable of combustion engines. The carboxylic acid of bio-oil has a significant effect on pH (Zhang et al., 2007). The acidity with pH = two to three makes the bio-oil corrosive, which imposes additional costs during the upgrading process of bio-oil before it can be used as a fuel in the transport industry.
FIGURE 1
The heart of the pyrolysis process is the reactor, where all biomass conversion reactions occur. Many reactors are used in the pyrolysis process, such as entrained flow reactors, fluidized bed reactor, fixed bed reactor, autoclave, rotating cone reactor, and plasma reactor (). These reactors can be classified into subcategories according to the flow of material and phenomena, such as circulating, co-current, counter-current, and crossflow. The amount of bio-oil depends on the type of reactors being used and the operating conditions (Peacocke et al., 1994; ).
Table 1 lists the experimental work conducted by different researchers using different temperature ranges for bio-oil production from the fast pyrolysis of biomass. examined the effects of temperature on the bio-oil product of a unique biomass Prosospis Juliflora. They tested its performance as a blending agent using a 35% bio-oil blended with diesel at the diesel engine’s fully loaded condition. reported a maximum 65 wt% and 64 wt% of bio-oil yield achieved at a temperature of 480°C and 490°C, respectively, with 0.9–1.9 mm size feed of wood sawdust and corn stove in microwave-assisted pyrolysis and applying a vacuum of less than 100 mmHg. examined the influence of temperature and catalyst amount in the fast pyrolysis of cotton stalk using a fixed bed reactor. The results showed that the percentage of ketone in bio-oil increases as the CaO amount as catalyst increases. Furthermore, as the temperature was increased above 600°C, the amount of bio-oil decreased, and the gaseous product increased. The bio-oil yield was higher between 500 and 600 C despite using different types of biomass and reactors (Table 1).
TABLE 1
| Sample | Reactor | Temperature range | Bio-oil yield | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palm kernel cake | Bubbling fluidized bed reactor | 350–600°C | 63% at 401°C | |
| Prosospis juliflora | Continuous blade type reactor | 350–800 C | 50.2% at 450 C | |
| Sawdust, Empty fruit bunch, Miscanthus | Circulating fluidized bed reactor | 400–600 C | 60% at 500 °C | Park et al. (2019) |
| Pomegranate marcs (PM) and grape marcs (GM) | Fixed bed reactor | 400–600 C | 43.7% at 500 C | |
| Rape straw | Continuous bubbling fluidized bed reactor | 450–550 C | 41.39% at 480 C | |
| Sugarcane bagasse | Batch pyrolysis reactor | 653–1053 K | 50.89% at 753 K | |
| Sewage sludge | Conical spouted bed reactor | 450–600 C | 77% at 500 C | |
| Saccharine japonica alga | Fixed-bed reactor | 350–550 C | 40.19% at 500 C | |
| Corn cob, Corn Stover, Sawdust Rice straw | Microwave-assisted reactor | 400–500 C | 42.1% | Ravikumar et al. (2017) |
| Pinewood, oak wood, rice husk | Rotating cone reactor | 550–700 C | 70% | Wagenaar et al. (1994) |
Experimental work on the fast pyrolysis of biomass for bio-oil production.
Economic Analysis for Bio-Oil Production
Economic analysis involves checking or testing the economic practicability of a process or product under a progressive stage, which helps track future research, expansion, and investment (Sharma et al., 2019). Financial analysis is related to determining the price of manufacturing, selling, investing, and marketing. Furthermore, the calculated values can help predict the future cash flow and return on investment. Different types of sustainability and business models, such as the triple bottom line analysis model and pay as you go model, are available for analyzing sustainability development (Sharma et al., 2019). Economic analysis is based on methods, size of the plants (laboratory, pilot, or commercial), availability, and continuous feedstock supply. Feed supply and product cost analysis are critical challenges to making the product market compatible—several factors are involved in the economic analysis. Fixed capital investment (FCI) refers to funds used to purchase manufacturing and plant infrastructure, while working capital refers to funds used to maintain factory operations. The total capital investment is the sum of the fixed capital investment and the working capital. Manufacturing fixed capital investment (direct cost) and non-manufacturing fixed capital investment may be separated into two categories (indirect cost). Capital needed to complete the process operation, such as site preparation, piping, instrumentation and auxiliary equipment, is included in manufacturing fixed-capital investment. In contrast, non-manufacturing fixed-capital investment includes construction overhead and components unrelated to the process operation (). Furthermore, the total direct production cost is calculated based on feedstock and utility costs. Total product cost highly depends upon both fixed capital and total product cost.
Using a blended feedstock (mixture of two or more different biomass) is beneficial because of the massive variety in biomass selection, lower risk, and lower carriage costs (Oasmaa et al., 2010). Bio-fuel upgrading is another suitable technique for making a product commercially feasible. Fast pyrolysis and upgrading of crude bio-oil can be carried out with or without the catalyst. Several kinds of catalysts used for the bio-oil upgradation (Ni, zeolite, Al2O3, Pd, Pt, TiO2, etc) (Mortensen et al., 2011; Miandad et al., 2019; ). The catalytic bio-oil has less acidic and oxygen compounds than non-catalytic bio-oils. These properties prove that the scale-up of catalytic pyrolysis is more favorable from an economic point of view because of the lesser requirement of additional equipment (Sorunmu et al., 2020). Recycling is another route to enhancing economic potential. Research has been conducted on rape straw, corn stalks, and camphor wood, in which gases produced during the pyrolysis process are recycled (Yang et al., 2018).
Table 2 lists the techno-economic analysis presented by several researchers for bio-oil production using the fast pyrolysis of biomass. The final percentage yield of bio-oil is one of the most substantial constraints affecting process economics. Meyer et al. (2020) conducted an economic evaluation of six lignocellulosic biomass. The maximum bio-oil yield was obtained through pine, while switchgrass provided the minimum product. Wang et al. (2019) performed a techno-economic analysis of the products obtained from the cotton stalk. They concluded that the production capacity could reach approximately 18,000 tons per year with a manufacturing cost of $3/kg. The research was conducted to determine the potential economic use of rice straw in thermochemical conversion techniques. The results showed that bio-oil production through pyrolysis from rice straw is economically viable. Usually, only 46–65% of the biomass is converted ().
TABLE 2
| Sample | Plant size or feed rate | Process | Software | Economic analysis findings | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pine | 2000 tons per day | Bubbling fluidized bed reactor pyrolysis oil upgrading | CHAMCAD | Capital cost: 30–40% | Meyer et al. (2020) |
| Tulip poplar | |||||
| Hybrid Poplar | Feedstock cost: 30% | ||||
| Switchgrass | Hydrotreating catalyst cost: 13–18% | ||||
| Corn stover | Labor cost: 12–15% | ||||
| Oriented strand board | |||||
| Forest residue | 5 kg/h | Continuous rotatory kiln reactor | Aspen Plus | The minimum selling price of upgraded bio-oil was more than double that of crude bio-oil | van Schalkwyk et al. (2020) |
| Corn cob | 96.5 ton per hour | Fluidized bed reactor and hydrotreating | PYROL | The least tolerable product prices for the economic feasibility of pyrolysis route US$ 1.47/gasoline-gallon-equivalent bio-oil | |
| HYSYS | |||||
| Sugarcane bagasse | 10 tons per hour | Pyrolysis reactor and hydrotreating | Aspen Plus | Fluctuating tax charges and capital costs can not disturb the least selling price as much as conversion ratios | Ramirez and Rainey (2019) |
| Eucalyptus | 2000 metric ton per day | Tail gas reactive pyrolysis (TGRP) and electricity generation plant | Pro/II simulator | The results specified that pyrolysis of eucalyptus for power in a single facility is not good with the current electricity cost | Pighinelli et al. (2018) |
| Rice husk | 1,000 tons per day | fluidized-bed fast pyrolysis | Aspen Plus | The least bio-oil selling price was intended as $ 0.55/L | Wang and Jan (2018) |
| Wheat straw | 100 kg/h | Internally interconnected fluidized bed reactor and pretreatment unit | Aspen plus | The mobile pyrolysis system has a better long-term economy than the fixed plant due to the higher turnover | |
| Corn cob | |||||
| Sawdust | |||||
| Pinewood | 72 tons per day | Pyrolysis reactor with catalytic cracking | Aspen plus | The outcomes deliver indication to the provision of biofuel production’s economic viability via zeolite cracking of pyrolysis-derived bio-oil | Shemfe et al. (2017) |
| Rice husk | 4,000 kg per hour | Pretreatment Pyrolysis reactor | Aspen Plus | The production cost of liquid fuel is less than the expected selling price of pyrolysis liquid with 6 years payback period | |
| Sugarcane bagasse | 1,000 tons per hour | Fast pyrolysis and hydrotreating | Financial and risk analysis | Fisher-Tropsch synthesis is the more efficient option than the fast pyrolysis approach | Michailos et al. (2017) |
| simulator | |||||
| Forest residue | 2000 dry metric tons per day | Pyrolysis reactor | Lab experiment and Aspen Plus | With a 30-years project life, a minimum fuel selling price was determined to be 6.25 $ per gallon | |
| hydrothermal treating | |||||
| Empty fruit bunch | 400 tons per day | Fast pyrolysis reactor | A four-level economic potential approach | The bio-oil plant is the most economical due to the highest economic potential for the rate of interest and return rate | |
| and upgrading unit |
Techno-economical analysis of bio-oil produced from fast pyrolysis.
Bio-Oil Production Cost and Life Cycle Analysis
Economic analysis is mainly based upon capital cost and cash flow analysis, as shown in Figure 2 (Mohammed et al., 2019). This analysis will help determine the investment required to run a plant every year and the production cost of bio-oil (Rogers and Brammer, 2012). The cost can be calculated by capacity factored (heat and mass balances, power supplies, size) and equipment-based assessment and quotation from vendors (Uslu et al., 2008). Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis is dependent on the fluctuations of the price rate of different parameters, such as feedstock, labor, electricity, taxes, and total plant running time (Oudenhoven et al., 2016). The additional economic analysis leads to the production cost of bio-oil, which can be compared with fuel produced from other sources and methods (). This can be reduced by applying different pretreatments, upgrading, and recycling techniques. The sale of by-products produced in biomass pyrolysis, such as biochar, can reduce the bio-oil production cost by 18% (Rogers and Brammer, 2012).
FIGURE 2
Operations cost, payback period, and break-even analysis are used to examine the link between anticipated project cost and the rate of return. Entire revenue and total costs must be equal for a company to break even, which is known as the breakeven point. A point at which the projected selling revenues plus the anticipated sale proceeds after upgrading are equal to production costs (). The plant’s lowest break-even selling point may be attained by employing the most inexpensive biomass available. The minimal feasible price for a given plant size was the risk event with the most significant break-even selling point (Rogers and Brammer, 2012).
Table 3 lists the cost of bio-oil produced from the fast pyrolysis of diverse types of biomass. Patel et al. (Patel et al., 2019) examined bio-oil production cost from the fast pyrolysis of 2000 tons per day woodchips and reported 1.09 $/L. They also tested the feasible plant size optimization from 500 to 5,000 tons per day and determined that a 3,000 tons per day capacity is well suited based on economic analysis. Xin et al. (2016) performed an economic analysis to determine the cost of bio-oil and co-products using a unique approach (cultivating, harvesting, dewatering, fast pyrolysis, and bio-oil utilization of water-based waste algae and estimated a price of $ 2.23/gallon bio-oil, which is an almost acceptable level. The return rate could surge to 18.7% if three grave mechanisms, such as cultivation, harvest, and conversion, can be advanced. conducted a cost analysis of biomass in in-situ and ex-situ catalytic pyrolysis. The least fuel-selling price of bio-oil from the in situ process was $1.11 per liter, whereas the ex-situ process was $1.13 per liter. Heat integration application in pyrolysis leads to the sustainability of the process via energy recovery and reduces the overall process’s utilities cost. The overall pyrolysis process is endothermic, and heat is required for the complete the significant reactions. The combustible gases produced as a co-product during fast pyrolysis can also provide the process heat. These approaches reduce the overall utilities and operation cost, which positively affect the bio-oil production cost. Economic analysis showed that the operating cost of the process was decreased using blended feedstock. Catalytic upgrading contributes to the operational cost and can be reduced using a less expensive catalyst. Furthermore, pyrolysis plants with a higher capacity can produce less expansive bio-oil than smaller plants. In addition, downstream methods, such as solvent addition, emulsification, electrolytic, and electrochemical processes for upgrading bio-oil should be developed for a cost-effective process ().
TABLE 3
| Source of bio-oil | Process | Capacity | Cost of bio-oil | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal sewage sludge | Pyrolysis, Gas Chromatography, Mass Spectroscopy | 50 kg/h | 3.130 (€/kg) | Shahbeig and Nosrati (2020) |
| Aspen Plus | ||||
| Napier grass bagasse | Pyrolysis | 49 kg/h | $ 5.81/gallon ($ 1.45/L) gasoline equivalent | Mohammed et al. (2019) |
| In situ hydrodeoxygenation | ||||
| Sludge | Integrated system with pyrolysis | 3.5 wet tons of scum, 265 dry tons of sludge daily | $ 1.85/gallon | Xin et al. (2018) |
| Scum | ||||
| Horse manure | Tail gas reactive pyrolysis (TGRP) | 200 metric dry ton per day | ($ 1.35–$ 1.80 L−1) of jet fuel by upgraded bio-oil | Sorunmu et al. (2017) |
| Pine | Pretreatment | 1,000 dry metric ton per day | 4.01–4.78 $/gal for the heat-integrated process | Winjobi et al. (2017) |
| Fast pyrolysis | 4.70–6.84 $/gal without heat integration | |||
| Catalytic upgrading | ||||
| Heat integration | ||||
| Sorghum bagasse | The regression-based chemical process model | 2000 metric tons per day (MT/d) | $ 2.5 to $ 5 per gallon | |
| Corn stove | ||||
| Palm kernel | ||||
| Switchgrass | ||||
| Beechwood | Pre-treatment | 500 MT/day | 2.32–3.08 $/gallons | Vasalos et al. (2016) |
| Catalytic circulating fluidized bed reactor | ||||
| Pinewood | Fast pyrolysis | 72 MT/day | £ 6.25/GGE | Shemfe et al. (2015) |
| Hydro processing | ||||
| Economic analyzer | ||||
| Red oak | Fast pyrolysis | 2000 dry metric tons per day | $ 3.09/gallon | |
| Five-stage fractionation system | ||||
| Microalgae | Pretreatment | 2000 MT per day | $ 1.49 and $ 1.80 per liter | Thilakaratne et al. (2014) |
| Catalytic Pyrolysis | ||||
| Chemical process modeling |
Cost of bio-oil produced from fast pyrolysis.
Bio-oil is used as a feedstock for boiler and heavy-duty engines. Furthermore, bio-oil is also used as a feedstock to produce several products, such as hydrogen, chemicals, binder for electrodes, and plastics. Bio-oil is commonly used for boilers as an alternative to furnace oil because of the advantages of low emissions (). From an economic point of view, the direct burning of bio-oil in boilers for heating is considered competitive with fossil fuels (). Co-firing bio-oil with conventional fuels is energy-efficient and cost-effective. Particular burner technologies, such as duel block systems, have been adopted in commercial plants for bio-oil burning (). Bio-oil is also considered a potential candidate for hydrogen production via catalytic cracking commercially (Wang et al., 2013). In addition, several chemicals and solvents can be produced from bio-oil on a commercial scale via distillation. In bio-oil applications, the cost is considered the main barrier to the commercialization of bio-oil on a large scale.
For biomass conversion pyrolysis processes, life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely accepted as a valuable framework for analyzing environmental, human, and natural resource effects (; Opatokun et al., 2017). For long-term strategic policy and environmental sustainability, it delivers scientific proof data. The LCA professionals and decision-makers have to find the paths to environmental sustainability and energy efficiency while considering the concepts simulated in the research (Osman et al., 2021). performed LCA for the pyrolysis process using a well-wheel approach. The greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions were reduced to 112% using the pyrolysis process. Meyer et al. (2020) studied the LFA with the effect of feedstock composition on the fast pyrolysis process and evaluated the GHG and economic analysis. Field to wheel approach used for data generation. Pyrolysis oil upgrading, electricity used in the pyrolysis process, energy used in biomass harvesting and processing are the essential variables in GHG emissions. GHG elimination may not always be in the best interest of the economy.
Conclusion
Fast pyrolysis is the most beneficial method to extract bio-oil products from biomass feedstock. Bio-oil and its properties differ considerably depending on the feedstock configuration and structure, residence time, and temperature. Several research articles have been published on optimizing bio-oil production from various biomasses using a fast pyrolysis process under different operating conditions. Few reports on economic analysis of the fast pyrolysis process make it commercially stable. This review article evaluated fast pyrolysis’s technical and economic routine to produce bio-oils from various biomass. A series of aspects, such as plant life expectancy, raw feed, technological parameters, and biomass price, regulate the economic stability of bio-oil production from fast pyrolysis. The temperature range from 500 to 600 C produces a higher bio-oil yield, reducing overall production cost. The production cost of bio-oil is the critical factor for evaluating the market compatibility with other biofuels available. The cost can be affected by different pretreatments, upgrading processes, and recycling techniques. The torrefaction of biomass as a pretreatment and upgrading of bio-oil using a less expensive catalyst will lead to cost-effective biomass pyrolysis for bio-oil production. A self-sustained pyrolysis process can reduce the bio-oil production cost and is most economical on a commercial scale. This review can aid future studies on bio-oil production in terms of the commercial sector’s economic benefits. Furthermore, there is a need to develop systematic autonomous algorithms required for the prediction of minimum bio-oil production cost based on the parametric study.
Statements
Author contributions
AI and AA developed the conceptualization and methodology of the study. RT and Y-KP managed resources, provided supervision and valuable research insights into the study. FJ, and SA provided literature resources and helped in analysis. CG contributed to the writing and provided valuable research insights. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, through the Competitive Research Project (1602040654-P). Also, the support from the National Research Foundation of Korea under the projects (NRF-2020R1I1A1A01072793, NRF- 2020M1A2A2079801) is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Abu BakarM. S.AhmedA.JefferyD. M.HidayatS.SukriR. S.MahliaT. M. I.et al (2020). Pyrolysis of Solid Waste Residues from Lemon Myrtle Essential Oils Extraction for Bio-Oil Production. Bioresour. Tech.318, 123913. 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123913
2
AdamsP.BridgwaterT.Lea-LangtonA.RossA.WatsonI. (2018). “Biomass Conversion Technologies,” in Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems. Editors ThornleyP.AdamsP. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, US: Academic Press), 107–139. 10.1016/b978-0-08-101036-5.00008-2
3
Al ArniS. (2018). Comparison of Slow and Fast Pyrolysis for Converting Biomass into Fuel. Renew. Energ.124, 197–201. 10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.060
4
AlvarezJ.LopezG.AmutioM.ArtetxeM.BarbariasI.ArregiA.et al (2016). Characterization of the Bio-Oil Obtained by Fast Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge in a Conical Spouted Bed Reactor. Fuel Process. Tech.149, 169–175. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.04.015
5
AteşF.BüyüktuncerH.YaşarB.IşıkA.BiricikG.KoparalA. S. (2019). Comparison of Non-catalytic and Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis of Pomegranate and Grape Marcs under Vacuum and Inert Atmospheres. Fuel255, 115788. 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115788
6
BoranF. E. (2018). A New Approach for Evaluation of Renewable Energy Resources: A Case of Turkey. Energ. Sourc. B: Econ. Plann. Pol.13, 196–204. 10.1080/15567249.2017.1423414
7
BorgesF. C.DuZ.XieQ.TrierweilerJ. O.ChengY.WanY.et al (2014). Fast Microwave Assisted Pyrolysis of Biomass Using Microwave Absorbent. Bioresour. Tech.156, 267–274. 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.038
8
BrammerJ. G.LauerM.BridgwaterA. V. (2006). Opportunities for Biomass-Derived "Bio-Oil" in European Heat and Power Markets. Energy Policy34, 2871–2880. 10.1016/j.enpol.2005.05.005
9
BridgwaterA. V. (2012). Review of Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass and Product Upgrading. Biomass and Bioenergy38, 68–94. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048
10
BridgwaterA. V. (2017). “Biomass Conversion Technologies: Fast Pyrolysis Liquids from Biomass: Quality and Upgrading,” in Biorefineries: Targeting Energy, High Value Products and Waste Valorisation. Editors RabaçalM.FerreiraA.F.SilvaC.A.M.CostaM. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 55–98. 10.1007/978-3-319-48288-0_3
11
BrigagãoG. V.de Queiroz Fernandes AraújoO.De MedeirosJ. L.MikulcicH.DuicN. (2019). A Techno-Economic Analysis of Thermochemical Pathways for Corncob-To-Energy: Fast Pyrolysis to Bio-Oil, Gasification to Methanol and Combustion to Electricity. Fuel Process. Tech.193, 102–113. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.05.011
12
CarrascoJ. L.GunukulaS.BoatengA. A.MullenC. A.DesistoW. J.WheelerM. C. (2017). Pyrolysis of forest Residues: An Approach to Techno-Economics for Bio-Fuel Production. Fuel193, 477–484. 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.063
13
ChandranR.KaliaperumalR.BalakrishnanS.BrittenA. J.MacinnisJ.MkandawireM. (2020). Characteristics of Bio-Oil from Continuous Fast Pyrolysis of Prosopis Juliflora. Energy190, 116387. 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116387
14
ChenX.ChenY.YangH.ChenW.WangX.ChenH. (2017). Fast Pyrolysis of Cotton Stalk Biomass Using Calcium Oxide. Bioresour. Tech.233, 15–20. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.070
15
ChenX.ZhangH.XiaoR. (2018). Mobile Autothermal Pyrolysis System for Local Biomass Conversion: Process Simulation and Techno-Economic Analysis. Energy Fuels32, 4178–4188. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03172
16
ChenX.ChenY.YangH.WangX.CheQ.ChenW.et al (2019). Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass: Selective Deoxygenation to Balance the Quality and Yield of Bio-Oil. Bioresour. Tech.273, 153–158. 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.008
17
CzernikS.BridgwaterA. V. (2004). Overview of Applications of Biomass Fast Pyrolysis Oil. Energy Fuels18, 590–598. 10.1021/ef034067u
18
DiehlmannF.ZimmerT.Glöser-ChahoudS.WiensM.SchultmannF. (2019). Techno-Economic Assessment of Utilization Pathways for rice Straw: A Simulation-Optimization Approach. J. Clean. Prod.230, 1329–1343. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.369
19
DoT. X.LimY.-I. (2016). Techno-Economic Comparison of Three Energy Conversion Pathways from Empty Fruit Bunches. Renew. Energ.90, 307–318. 10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.030
20
FarooqW.AliI.Raza NaqviS.SajidM.Abbas KhanH.AdamuS. (2021). Evolved Gas Analysis and Kinetics of Catalytic and Non-Catalytic Pyrolysis of Microalgae Chlorella Sp. Biomass with Ni/θ-Al2O3 Catalyst via Thermogravimetric Analysis. Front. Energ. Res.9, 775037. 10.3389/fenrg.2021.775037
21
Garcia-NunezJ. A.Pelaez-SamaniegoM. R.Garcia-PerezM. E.FontsI.AbregoJ.WesterhofR. J. M.et al (2017). Historical Developments of Pyrolysis Reactors: A Review. Energy Fuels31, 5751–5775. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00641
22
GhenaiC.InayatA.ShanablehA.Al-SarairahE.JanajrehI. (2019). Combustion and Emissions Analysis of Spent Pot Lining (SPL) as Alternative Fuel in Cement Industry. Sci. Total Environ.684, 519–526. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.157
23
GómezN.BanksS. W.NowakowskiD. J.RosasJ. G.CaraJ.SánchezM. E.et al (2018). Effect of Temperature on Product Performance of a High Ash Biomass during Fast Pyrolysis and its Bio-Oil Storage Evaluation. Fuel Process. Tech.172, 97–105. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.11.021
24
HanJ.ElgowainyA.DunnJ. B.WangM. Q. (2013). Life Cycle Analysis of Fuel Production from Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass. Bioresour. Tech.133, 421–428. 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.141
25
HouS.-S.HuangW.-C.RizalF.LinT.-H. (2016). Co-Firing of Fast Pyrolysis Bio-Oil and Heavy Fuel Oil in a 300-kWth Furnace. Appl. Sci.6, 326. 10.3390/app6110326
26
HuW.DangQ.RoverM.BrownR. C.WrightM. M. (2016). Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Advanced Biofuels, Biochemicals, and Hydrocarbon Chemicals via the Fast Pyrolysis Platform. Biofuels7, 57–67. 10.1080/17597269.2015.1118780
27
InayatA.AhmadM. M.MutalibM. I. A.YusupS.KhanZ. (2017). Economic Analysis and Optimization for Bio-Hydrogen Production from Oil palm Waste via Steam Gasification. Energ. Sourc. Part B: Econ. Plann. Pol.12, 158–165. 10.1080/15567249.2014.937881
28
InayatA.InayatM.ShahbazM.SulaimanS. A.RazaM.YusupS. (2020). Parametric Analysis and Optimization for the Catalytic Air Gasification of palm Kernel Shell Using Coal Bottom Ash as Catalyst. Renew. Energ.145, 671–681. 10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.104
29
IribarrenD.PetersJ. F.DufourJ. (2012). Life Cycle Assessment of Transportation Fuels from Biomass Pyrolysis. Fuel97, 812–821. 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.02.053
30
JaroenkhasemmeesukC.TippayawongN. (2015). Technical and Economic Analysis of A Biomass Pyrolysis Plant. Energ. Proced.79, 950–955. 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.592
31
JeongJ.-Y.YangC.-W.LeeU.-D.JeongS.-H. (2020). Characteristics of the Pyrolytic Products from the Fast Pyrolysis of palm Kernel Cake in a Bench-Scale Fluidized Bed Reactor. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis145, 104708. 10.1016/j.jaap.2019.104708
32
JiL.-Q.ZhangC.FangJ.-Q. (2017). Economic Analysis of Converting of Waste Agricultural Biomass into Liquid Fuel: A Case Study on a Biofuel Plant in China. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.70, 224–229. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.189
33
KimY.ParkerW. (2008). A Technical and Economic Evaluation of the Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge for the Production of Bio-Oil. Bioresour. Tech.99, 1409–1416. 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.056
34
KumarR.StrezovV. (2021). Thermochemical Production of Bio-Oil: A Review of Downstream Processing Technologies for Bio-Oil Upgrading, Production of Hydrogen and High Value-Added Products. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.135, 110152. 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110152
35
LehtoJ.OasmaaA.SolantaustaY.KytöM.ChiaramontiD. (2014). Review of Fuel Oil Quality and Combustion of Fast Pyrolysis Bio-Oils from Lignocellulosic Biomass. Appl. Energ.116, 178–190. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.11.040
36
LiS.XuS.LiuS.YangC.LuQ. (2004). Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass in Free-Fall Reactor for Hydrogen-Rich Gas. Fuel Process. Tech.85, 1201–1211. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2003.11.043
37
LiB.OuL.DangQ.MeyerP.JonesS.BrownR.et al (2015). Techno-Economic and Uncertainty Analysis of In Situ and Ex Situ Fast Pyrolysis for Biofuel Production. Bioresour. Tech.196, 49–56. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.073
38
LiW.DangQ.BrownR. C.LairdD.WrightM. M. (2017). The Impacts of Biomass Properties on Pyrolysis Yields, Economic and Environmental Performance of the Pyrolysis-Bioenergy-Biochar Platform to Carbon Negative Energy. Bioresour. Tech.241, 959–968. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.049
39
LyH. V.KimS.-S.ChoiJ. H.WooH. C.KimJ. (2016). Fast Pyrolysis of Saccharina Japonica Alga in a Fixed-Bed Reactor for Bio-Oil Production. Energ. Convers. Manag.122, 526–534. 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.06.019
40
MaratheP. S.WesterhofR. J. M.KerstenS. R. A. (2020). Effect of Pressure and Hot Vapor Residence Time on the Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass: Experiments and Modeling. Energy Fuels34, 1773–1780. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b03193
41
MeyerP. A.Snowden-SwanL. J.JonesS. B.RappéK. G.HartleyD. S. (2020). The Effect of Feedstock Composition on Fast Pyrolysis and Upgrading to Transportation Fuels: Techno-Economic Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Analysis. Fuel259, 116218. 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116218
42
MiandadR.RehanM.BarakatM. A.AburiazaizaA. S.KhanH.IsmailI. M. I.et al (2019). Catalytic Pyrolysis of Plastic Waste: Moving toward Pyrolysis Based Biorefineries. Front. Energ. Res.7. 10.3389/fenrg.2019.00027
43
MichailosS.ParkerD.WebbC. (2017). A Techno-Economic Comparison of Fischer-Tropsch and Fast Pyrolysis as Ways of Utilizing Sugar Cane Bagasse in Transportation Fuels Production. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.118, 206–214. 10.1016/j.cherd.2017.01.001
44
MohammedI. Y.AbakrY. A.MokayaR. (2019). Integrated Biomass Thermochemical Conversion for Clean Energy Production: Process Design and Economic Analysis. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.7, 103093. 10.1016/j.jece.2019.103093
45
MortensenP. M.GrunwaldtJ.-D.JensenP. A.KnudsenK. G.JensenA. D. (2011). A Review of Catalytic Upgrading of Bio-Oil to Engine Fuels. Appl. Catal. A: Gen.407, 1–19. 10.1016/j.apcata.2011.08.046
46
NacheniusR. W.RonsseF.VenderboschR. H.PrinsW. (2013). “Biomass Pyrolysis,” in Advances in Chemical Engineering. Editor MurzinD. Y. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, US: Academic Press), 75–139. 10.1016/b978-0-12-386505-2.00002-x
47
NaikS. N.GoudV. V.RoutP. K.DalaiA. K. (2010). Production of First and Second Generation Biofuels: A Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.14, 578–597. 10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.003
48
NzihouA.StanmoreB.LyczkoN.MinhD. P. (2019). The Catalytic Effect of Inherent and Adsorbed Metals on the Fast/Flash Pyrolysis of Biomass: A Review. Energy170, 326–337. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.174
49
OasmaaA.SolantaustaY.ArpiainenV.KuoppalaE.SipiläK. (2010). Fast Pyrolysis Bio-Oils from Wood and Agricultural Residues. Energy Fuels24, 1380–1388. 10.1021/ef901107f
50
OpatokunS. A.Lopez-SabironA.FerreiraG.StrezovV. (2017). Life Cycle Analysis of Energy Production from Food Waste through Anaerobic Digestion, Pyrolysis and Integrated Energy System. Sustainability9, 1804. 10.3390/su9101804
51
OsmanA. I.MehtaN.ElgarahyA. M.Al-HinaiA.Al-MuhtasebA. A. H.RooneyD. W. (2021). Conversion of Biomass to Biofuels and Life Cycle Assessment: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett.19, 4075–4118. 10.1007/s10311-021-01273-0
52
OudenhovenS. R. G.Van Der HamA. G. J.Van Den BergH.WesterhofR. J. M.KerstenS. R. A. (2016). Using Pyrolytic Acid Leaching as a Pretreatment Step in a Biomass Fast Pyrolysis Plant: Process Design and Economic Evaluation. Biomass and Bioenergy95, 388–404. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.07.003
53
ParkJ. Y.KimJ.-K.OhC.-H.ParkJ.-W.KwonE. E. (2019). Production of Bio-Oil from Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass Using a Pilot-Scale Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactor and its Characterization. J. Environ. Manage.234, 138–144. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.104
54
PatelM.OyedunA. O.KumarA.GuptaR. (2019). A Techno-Economic Assessment of Renewable Diesel and Gasoline Production from Aspen Hardwood. Waste Biomass Valor.10, 2745–2760. 10.1007/s12649-018-0359-x
55
PeacockeG. V. C.MadraliE. S.LiC.-Z.GüellA. J.WuF.KandiyotiR.et al (1994). Effect of Reactor Configuration on the Yields and Structures of Pine-Wood Derived Pyrolysis Liquids: A Comparison between Ablative and Wire-Mesh Pyrolysis. Biomass and Bioenergy7, 155–167. 10.1016/0961-9534(94)00055-X
56
PighinelliA. L. M. T.SchafferM. A.BoatengA. A. (2018). Utilization of eucalyptus for Electricity Production in Brazil via Fast Pyrolysis: A Techno-Economic Analysis. Renew. Energ.119, 590–597. 10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.036
57
RamirezJ. A.RaineyT. J. (2019). Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuel Production through Gasification, Thermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Sugarcane Bagasse. J. Clean. Prod.229, 513–527. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.017
58
RavikumarC.Senthil KumarP.SubhashniS. K.TejaswiniP. V.VarshiniV. (2017). Microwave Assisted Fast Pyrolysis of Corn Cob, Corn stover, Saw Dust and Rice Straw: Experimental Investigation on Bio-Oil Yield and High Heating Values. Sust. Mater. Tech.11, 19–27. 10.1016/j.susmat.2016.12.003
59
RogersJ. G.BrammerJ. G. (2012). Estimation of the Production Cost of Fast Pyrolysis Bio-Oil. Biomass and Bioenergy36, 208–217. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.028
60
ShahbazM.YusupS.PratamaA.InayatA.PatrickD. O.AmmarM. (2016). Parametric Study and Optimization of Methane Production in Biomass Gasification in the Presence of Coal Bottom Ash. Proced. Eng.148, 409–416. 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.432
61
ShahbeigH.NosratiM. (2020). Pyrolysis of Municipal Sewage Sludge for Bioenergy Production: Thermo-Kinetic Studies, Evolved Gas Analysis, and Techno-Socio-Economic Assessment. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.119, 109567. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109567
62
SharmaA.JakheteA.SharmaA.JoshiJ. B.PareekV. (2019). Lowering Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Techno‐economic Analysis of Biomass Conversion to Biofuels and Value‐Added Chemicals. Greenhouse Gas Sci. Technol.9, 454–473. 10.1002/ghg.1867
63
ShemfeM. B.GuS.RanganathanP. (2015). Techno-Economic Performance Analysis of Biofuel Production and Miniature Electric Power Generation from Biomass Fast Pyrolysis and Bio-Oil Upgrading. Fuel143, 361–372. 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.078
64
ShemfeM.GuS.FidalgoB. (2017). Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuel Production via Bio-Oil Zeolite Upgrading: An Evaluation of Two Catalyst Regeneration Systems. Biomass and Bioenergy98, 182–193. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.01.020
65
SorunmuY. E.BillenP.ElkasabiY.MullenC. A.MackenN. A.BoatengA. A.et al (2017). Fuels and Chemicals from Equine-Waste-Derived Tail Gas Reactive Pyrolysis Oil: Technoeconomic Analysis, Environmental and Exergetic Life Cycle Assessment. ACS Sust. Chem. Eng.5, 8804–8814. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01609
66
SorunmuY.BillenP.SpatariS. (2020). A Review of Thermochemical Upgrading of Pyrolysis Bio‐oil: Techno‐Economic Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, and Technology Readiness. GCB Bioenergy12, 4–18. 10.1111/gcbb.12658
67
TabakaevR.KanipaI.AstafevA.DubininY.YazykovN.ZavorinA.et al (2019). Thermal Enrichment of Different Types of Biomass by Low-Temperature Pyrolysis. Fuel245, 29–38. 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.049
68
ThilakaratneR.WrightM. M.BrownR. C. (2014). A Techno-Economic Analysis of Microalgae Remnant Catalytic Pyrolysis and Upgrading to Fuels. Fuel128, 104–112. 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.02.077
69
TrinhQ. T.BanerjeeA.AnsariK. B.DaoD. Q.DrifA.BinhN. T.et al (2020). “Upgrading of Bio-Oil from Biomass Pyrolysis: Current Status and Future Development,” in Biorefinery of Alternative Resources: Targeting Green Fuels and Platform Chemicals. Editors NandaS.VoD.-V. N.SarangiP. K. (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 317–353. 10.1007/978-981-15-1804-1_14
70
UsluA.FaaijA. P. C.BergmanP. C. A. (2008). Pre-treatment Technologies, and Their Effect on International Bioenergy Supply Chain Logistics. Techno-Economic Evaluation of Torrefaction, Fast Pyrolysis and Pelletisation. Energy33, 1206–1223. 10.1016/j.energy.2008.03.007
71
Van SchalkwykD. L.MandegariM.FarzadS.GörgensJ. F. (2020). Techno-Economic and Environmental Analysis of Bio-Oil Production from forest Residues via Non-Catalytic and Catalytic Pyrolysis Processes. Energ. Convers. Manag.213, 112815. 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112815
72
VasalosI. A.LappasA. A.KopalidouE. P.KalogiannisK. G. (2016). Biomass Catalytic Pyrolysis: Process Design and Economic Analysis. Wires Energ. Environ5, 370–383. 10.1002/wene.192
73
WagenaarB. M.PrinsW.Van SwaaijW. P. M. (1994). Pyrolysis of Biomass in the Rotating Cone Reactor: Modelling and Experimental Justification. Chem. Eng. Sci.49, 5109–5126. 10.1016/0009-2509(94)00392-0
74
WangW.-C.JanJ.-J. (2018). From Laboratory to Pilot: Design Concept and Techno-Economic Analyses of the Fluidized Bed Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass. Energy155, 139–151. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.012
75
WangS.LiX.ZhangF.CaiQ.WangY.LuoZ. (2013). Bio-Oil Catalytic Reforming without Steam Addition: Application to Hydrogen Production and Studies on its Mechanism. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ.38, 16038–16047. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.032
76
WangJ.LuZ.ShahA. (2019). Techno‐Economic Analysis of Levoglucosan Production via Fast Pyrolysis of Cotton Straw in China. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref.13, 1085–1097. 10.1002/bbb.2004
77
WinjobiO.ShonnardD. R.ZhouW. (2017). Production of Hydrocarbon Fuel Using Two-Step Torrefaction and Fast Pyrolysis of Pine. Part 1: Techno-Economic Analysis. ACS Sust. Chem. Eng.5, 4529–4540. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00372
78
XinC.AddyM. M.ZhaoJ.ChengY.ChengS.MuD.et al (2016). Comprehensive Techno-Economic Analysis of Wastewater-Based Algal Biofuel Production: A Case Study. Bioresour. Tech.211, 584–593. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.102
79
XinC.AddyM. M.ZhaoJ.ChengY.MaY.LiuS.et al (2018). Waste-to-Biofuel Integrated System and its Comprehensive Techno-Economic Assessment in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Bioresour. Tech.250, 523–531. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.040
80
YangM.LuoB.ShaoJ.ZengK.ZhangX.YangH.et al (2018). The Influence of CO2 on Biomass Fast Pyrolysis at Medium Temperatures. J. Renew. Sust. Energ.10, 013108. 10.1063/1.5005013
81
ZhangQ.ChangJ.WangT.XuY. (2007). Review of Biomass Pyrolysis Oil Properties and Upgrading Research. Energ. Convers. Manag.48, 87–92. 10.1016/j.enconman.2006.05.010
82
ZhangH.XiaoR.WangD.HeG.ShaoS.ZhangJ.et al (2011). Biomass Fast Pyrolysis in a Fluidized Bed Reactor under N2, CO2, CO, CH4 and H2 Atmospheres. Bioresour. Tech.102, 4258–4264. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.075
83
ZhangY.BrownT. R.HuG.BrownR. C. (2013). Techno-Economic Analysis of Monosaccharide Production via Fast Pyrolysis of Lignocellulose. Bioresour. Tech.127, 358–365. 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.070
Summary
Keywords
fast pyrolysis, biomass, bio-oil, economic analysis, production cost
Citation
Inayat A, Ahmed A, Tariq R, Waris A, Jamil F, Ahmed SF, Ghenai C and Park Y-K (2022) Techno-Economical Evaluation of Bio-Oil Production via Biomass Fast Pyrolysis Process: A Review. Front. Energy Res. 9:770355. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.770355
Received
03 September 2021
Accepted
21 December 2021
Published
13 January 2022
Volume
9 - 2021
Edited by
Abdul-Sattar Nizami, Government College University, Pakistan
Reviewed by
Muhammad Abdul Qyyum, Independent researcher, Muscat, Oman
Muhammad Farooq, University of Engineering and Technology, Pakistan
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Inayat, Ahmed, Tariq, Waris, Jamil, Ahmed, Ghenai and Park.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Young-Kwon Park, catalica@uos.ac.kr; Abrar Inayat, ainayat@sharjah.ac.ae
This article was submitted to Bioenergy and Biofuels, a section of the journal Frontiers in Energy Research
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.