Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/wasman

Review

Second generation bioethanol potential from selected Malaysia’sbiodiversity biomasses: A review

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.0310956-053X/� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty ofEngineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

E-mail addresses: aditharjon@siswa.um.edu.my (H.B. Aditiya), chong_wentong@um.edu.my (W.T. Chong), indra@uniten.edu.my (T.M.I. Mahlia).

H.B. Aditiya a,b,⇑, W.T. Chong a, T.M.I. Mahlia b, A.H. Sebayang a, M.A. Berawi c, Hadi Nur d

a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysiab Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, 43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysiac Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Kampus UI, Depok, Indonesiad Centre for Sustainable Nanomaterials, Ibnu Sina Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 24 April 2015Revised 22 June 2015Accepted 19 July 2015Available online 5 August 2015

Keywords:Second generation bioethanolOil palm biomassPaddy biomassPineapple biomassBanana biomassDurian biomass

Rising global temperature, worsening air quality and drastic declining of fossil fuel reserve are the inevi-table phenomena from the disorganized energy management. Bioethanol is believed to clear out theeffects as being an energy-derivable product sourced from renewable organic sources. Second generationbioethanol interests many researches from its unique source of inedible biomass, and this paper presentsthe potential of several selected biomasses from Malaysia case. As one of countries with rich biodiversity,Malaysia holds enormous potential in second generation bioethanol production from its various agricul-tural and forestry biomasses, which are the source of lignocellulosic and starch compounds. This paperreviews potentials of biomasses and potential ethanol yield from oil palm, paddy (rice), pineapple,banana and durian, as the common agricultural waste in the country but uncommon to be served asbioethanol feedstock, by calculating the theoretical conversion of cellulose, hemicellulose and starchcomponents of the biomasses into bioethanol. Moreover, the potential of the biomasses as feedstockare discussed based on several reported works.

� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1.1. Bioethanol properties as renewable fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2. Bioethanol potential calculation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483. Potential Malaysia’s agricultural wastes as the feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.1. Oil palm biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.2. Paddy/rice biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523.3. Pineapple biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.4. Banana biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.5. Durian biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

1. Introduction

Malaysia provides the possible limitless options of renewableenergy resources. Located in the tropical climate, all-year sunshineis one blessing that Malaysia owns. The solar energy could be

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Crud

e oi

l res

erve

(bil

barr

els)

Year

Sarawak

Sabah

Peninsular

Fig. 1. Malaysia’s crude oil reserve by region (Commission, 2011b).

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Fina

l con

sum

p�on

(kbo

e)

Year

Diesel

Gasoline

Fig. 2. Malaysia’s fuel consumption (Commission, 2011a).

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 47

transferred into living and non-living things that made them even-tually possible to be transformed into energy resources after manyyears, for instance, petroleum, coal, natural gas, etc. Technologiesover time were developed, which made them further processedand refined into our reachable applications of energy, namely, elec-tricity, fuels, etc.

Petroleum production in Malaysia has a decreasing trend in therecent decade. Although the nature provides Malaysia with rawpetroleum within the nation, Malaysia still far from petroleum sus-tainability in comparing with other countries’ reservation. WhenIraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia reserve 115, 138 and 260 billion barrels,Malaysia is only able to reserves approximately 5.5 billion barrels(Shafie et al., 2011). Additionally, the energy demand in trans-portation sector, as the biggest user of petroleum products, hasbeen rising with the worrying trend. Along with industrial sector,Malaysia’s transport sector seems still the most dependant onthe fossil petroleum products, which mostly are diesel and gaso-line. Malaysia’s crude oil reserve has shown a very slow responsethroughout the past decades, as shown in Fig. 1 (Commission,2011b). It seems that the Malaysia’s oil stock would have a hardtime to fulfil the trend of both diesel and gasoline consumption,as they have been constantly increasing throughout the decades(Fig. 2) (Commission, 2011a). Data released by United NationDevelopment Programme (2006) reported that transportation sec-tor led the energy demand by sector in Malaysia for year 2000,2005 and 2010 by 505.5, 661.3 and 911.7 petajoules respectively.

Table 1Estimation of fuel consumption based on vehicles type in Malaysia (DECP, 2006; Kennedy

Vehicle type Estimated vehicles number (

2005 2010

Domestic cars (run on diesel) 22.18 28.82Domestic cars (run on gasoline) 5837.74 7586.16Large vehicles (busses and lorry, run on diesel) 695.13 975.64Large vehicles (busses and lorry, run on gasoline) 243.88 343.83

Table 1 shows the breakdown of Malaysia’s fuel consumptionand its estimation on transport sector based on the vehicle types(DECP, 2006; Kennedy and Ahamad, 2007).

Despite the mentioned worrying facts, Malaysia still have manypotentials to retract these drawbacks. Bioethanol is one answer forMalaysia as it holds the tropical biodiversity, which is the key toestablish bioethanol production sustainably. Bioethanol couldbring the practical benefits if to be implemented nationally inMalaysia. Brazil has been implementing bioethanol–gasoline blendsince the 1930s (Rodrigues, 2000), and the implementation of theblending was mandatorily increased by 50% in 1943 (Kovarik,2008). Malaysia, as a country that is relatively having the samegeographic location and condition with Brazil, could potentiallyfollow Brazil’s path in utilizing its own agricultural resources tocontribute in fulfilling the nation’s energy demand. This suggestionis true since Malaysia’s transportations are majorly operated byfossil gasoline than fossil diesel; as vehicles with spark-ignitionengines are in the bigger proportion than the vehicles withcompression-ignition engine (diesel engine). However, Malaysia’sinterest in biodiesel production and its performance is seemedgreater in comparison with bioethanol studies, as reported byOng et al. (2014a,b, 2013), Silitonga et al. (2011, 2013a,b).

Second generation bioethanol production captures the atten-tion of many researchers and scientists in the optimism of betterpath of fuel sustainability. Crossing off the food-versus-fuel riskfrom the equation, second generation production utilizes thenon-edible lignocellulosic and starchy materials from agriculturaland forestry biomasses and it becomes one fascinating solutionin the popular deteriorating fuel demand and environmental com-plications. From lignocellulosic material alone, Kim and Dale(2004) reported that the global ethanol production from this mate-rial can potentially produce about 442 billion litres, which isapproximately 16 times greater compared to the current globalproduction. Bioethanol production via this route is also expectedto be economically preferable in the future for the observable rea-son of low feedstock cost. A study by Eijck et al. (2014) reportedthe overall production cost of second generation biofuels produc-tion. It is projected that in year 2020 the production costs$17-26/GJ of biofuel produced, while in another future decade,2030, is estimated decreased to $14-23/GJ of biofuel produced.The authors also claimed that conversion optimization dominatesthe whole production costs, which covers 35–65%. In Malaysia,similar studies regarding various non-edible feedstock conversionbut to produce biodiesel have been reported by Ong et al.(2014a,b,c), Silitonga et al. (2013b,c, 2014). However, it is ratherrare to find study of which focusing on the potential of differentMalaysian biomasses in second generation bioethanol productionalthough Malaysia’s agricultural biomass reserves are abundant:85.5% from oil palm, 9.5% from municipal solid waste, 3.7% fromwood industry, 0.7% from rice and 0.5% from sugarcane (Hassanand Shirai, 2003).

This study is aimed to emphasize the potential of second gener-ation bioethanol in Malaysia from its various biomasses throughtheoretical conversion approach of their lignocellulosic and starchcomponents to obtain potential yield of bioethanol production. Inaddition, this study is aimed to imply that the selected biomasses

and Ahamad, 2007).

thousands) Annual fuel consumption in average (L/vehicle)

2015 2020

35.89 43.29 15009447.80 11,396.56 15001348.37 1843.99 5000 (for busses), 5700 (for goods vehicles)477.10 654.84

Table 2Comparison fuel properties of gasoline and ethanol.

Property Gasoline Ethanol References

Chemical structure C4 to C12 CH3CH2OH Center (2014)Molecular weight (g/mol) 111 46 Association (2012)Feedstocks Crude oil Corn, grains, or agricultural waste (cellulose) Center (2014)Oxygen content (wt.%) Not reported 34.8 Association (2012), Rakopoulos et al. (2011)Energy content (lower heating value, Btu/gal) 112,114–

116,09076,330 for E100 Laboratory (2013)

Energy content (higher heating value, Btu/gal) 120,388–124,340

84,530 for E100 Laboratory (2013)

Boiling point (�C) 30–190 78 Association (2012), Rakopoulos et al. (2011)Physical state Liquid Liquid Center (2014)Cetane number N/A 0–54, 8 (API) (2011), Balat (2007), Rakopoulos et al. (2011)Pump octane number 84–93 110 Center (2014)Flash point (�C) �42.8 12.8 Institute (2012)Autoignition temperature (�C) 257.2 422.8, 332.8 Balat (2007), Institute (2012)Density, at 59�F (kg/L) 0.75 0.80–0.82 Association (2012)Stoichiometric air–fuel ratio (kg air/kg fuel) 14.7 9 Association (2012), Rakopoulos et al. (2011)Reid vapour pressure, at 59�F (kPa) 75 16.5 Association (2012)

48 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

in this paper are suitable and capable in producing second genera-tion bioethanol, by serving discussions of the reported researchesof bioethanol production from each biomass. Bioethanol producedfrom the inedible agricultural products would be functional to dis-place the gasoline demands for Malaysia’s transportation sector, asthe largest user of fossil gasoline.

1.1. Bioethanol properties as renewable fuel

The characteristics and the capabilities of bioethanol make itfavourable to be blended with the fossil gasoline. The needs to fulfilthe energy demand with the concerning environmental impactsand non-renewable fuel’s stock resulted from the fossil fuel trig-gered the researches in renewable and environmental friendlyenergy resources, which bioethanol is one of them (Oh et al., 2010).

With its high octane number of 108, bioethanol prevents engineknocking and early ignition and thus leads to high antiknock value.Additionally, higher octane number also provides wider flamma-bility, higher heat vapourization and higher speed of flame(Balat, 2007). Although it has 68% lower energy content comparedto gasoline, bioethanol’s high oxygen content makes the combus-tion cleaner and resulting lower emission of toxic substances(Krylova et al., 2008). In fact, bioethanol also helps to reduce CO2

emission up to 80% compared to using gasoline, thus promotinga cleaner environment for the future (Lashinky and Schwartz,2006). Table 2 shows the comparison between gasoline and etha-nol of their fuel properties from several studies.

Analysed from the autoignition temperature, ethanol relativelyrequires higher temperature than gasoline to be autoignited, hencethe vapour ethanol will be only combusted later than gasolinewithout a forced ignition. Due to this property, ethanol is onlyfavourable for spark-ignition engine since it is equipped with thespark plug to initiate the ignition. Served as the minimum temper-ature where a substance is able to evaporate into a flammablevapour, the higher flash point of ethanol gives a better storage han-dling ability and less flammable. Unlike gasoline, ethanol is a lesshazardous chemical than gasoline. This is the reason why the cur-rent petrol station takes care of its entire operational activitieswith a maximum safety concern, for instance, not allowing any-body to smoke, using electronic device, turning off the enginewhile filling up the gasoline and any activities that may triggerignition of the vapourized gasoline.

2. Bioethanol potential calculation method

The bioethanol potential of each tropical Malaysia’s biomasswas calculated by the method described by Goh et al. (2010).

The method was derived theoretically from the dominant sugaryielded types in bioethanol production: glucose and xylose.Glucose is the simple monomer of sugar derived from cellulosecomponent in the biomass, while xylose is derived from hemicel-lulose component, which both components are the major existingcomponents in any typical lignocellulosic biomass. According tostoichiometric, glucose produces 0.5111 of ethanol, while0.5175 ethanol is produced from xylose. The authors also addedthe efficiency of conversion recovery (during hydrolysis process)of cellulose to glucose and of hemicellulose to xylose into themethod, which are 0.76 and 0.90 respectively; and fermentationefficiency of glucose and xylose to ethanol, which are 0.75 and0.50 respectively and all efficiency values are taken fromDemirbas (2005). Taking all the factors into account, the bioetha-nol potential can be calculated by Eqs. (1) and (2). The totalbioethanol potential from lignocellulosic materials in this paperis presented as the accumulation of both potential from celluloseand hemicellulose conversions.

Potential bioethanol from cellulose ðtonnesÞ¼ cellulose amount ðtonnesÞ� theoretical yield ð0:5111Þ� glucose recovery efficiency ð0:76Þ� glucose fermentation efficiency ð0:75Þ ð1Þ

Potential bioethanol from hemicellulose ðtonnesÞ¼ hemicellulose amount ðtonnesÞ� theoretical yield ð0:5175Þ� xylose recovery efficiency ð0:90Þ� xylose fermentation efficiency ð0:50Þ ð2Þ

The bioethanol potential from starch material in this paper(i.e. durian seed) was computed using method described byGulati et al. (1996) with several unit adjustments and assump-tions, including conversion to metric units and the potential ofstarch from durian seed is assumed equal to corn starch,of which originally the method for. The authors consider massof the starch-rich feedstock, moisture content, starch fraction,theoretical conversion of glucose from starch (1.111 kg glu-cose/kg starch), theoretical ethanol yield in fermentation(0.511 kg ethanol/kg glucose) and average ethanol density(0.789 kg/L) into the method. The bioethanol potential fromstarch-rich feedstock is calculated by Eq. (3).

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 49

Potential bioethanol from starch-rich materialðlitreÞ¼ ½Feedstock mass ðkgÞ � ð1�moisture fractionÞ� starch fraction

� theoretical ethanol yieldÞ�=density ðkg=lÞ ð3Þ

In this study, bioethanol potential from different tropicalMalaysia’s biomasses was computed through the Malaysia’sannual production data of the plants. From the production, thepotential biomasses were then segmented according to the respec-tive fractions of sugar-source components which values weretaken from literatures. This means the total amount cellulose andhemicellulose components for lignocellulosic materials, and totalamount of starch from starch-rich materials, were computedbeforehand. Then, the total amount of biomasses (in terms of cel-lulose, hemicellulose and starch) were taken into account to Eqs.(1)–(3), accordingly, to compute the total bioethanol potentialfrom respective tropical biomass. The results of the calculationare presented in this paper under the respective section accordingto the biomass.

3. Potential Malaysia’s agricultural wastes as the feedstock

3.1. Oil palm biomass

Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), which nowadays is spread through-out the world’s tropical area, was originally from West Africa. Theoriginal African oil palm was brought to the Malaya region (thenow Sumatra, Indonesia; and peninsular Malaysia) in the begin-ning of the 20th century. Morphologically, oil palm fruits comein a bunch weighs around 10–40 kg each and reddish in colour.Each fruit comprises a seed (kernel) that is covered with the pulp(mesocarp). The size of one oil palm fruit is identical with a largeplum (Shuit et al., 2009). Figs. 3 and 4 show the oil palm withthe biomass and the Malaysia’s oil palm plantation distributionmap (Gardendoctor, 2013; MPOB, 2010a; Resources, 2007).

Fig. 3. Oil palm and its biom

Malaysia is the world’s second richest in oil palm plantationproducer after Indonesia. In 2006, Malaysia supplied 43% (15.88million tonnes) of the total world’s oil palm, right after Indonesiawith its 44% (15.9 million tonnes) of world’s oil palm crops(Agriculture, 2007). This designation for Malaysia is true due tothe global attraction in palm oil as the edible oil, where in 2007about 25% of edible oil production was dominated by palm oil(MPOC, 2008). The Malaysia’s production has been increased forthe next upcoming years afterwards. According to United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2014),Malaysia possesses an increasing production throughout the recentyears (2010–2014) in the contribution to the world’s oil palm pro-duction, as seen in Fig. 5 (MPOB, 2010b, 2012, 2014). Compared toany other countries that major in oil palm productions (e.g.Thailand, Colombia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Ecuador,Honduras, Cote d’Ivoire, Guatemala), Malaysia still ranked as theworld’s second largest oil palm producer, after its neighbouringcountry, Indonesia. In 2013, Malaysia had contributed 20.2 millionmetric tonnes to the world’s oil palm production. The number hasincreased to 21.25 million metric tonnes to the most recent date(October 2014). Conventionally, fruit of oil palm tree is extractedinto two major oil types: palm oil and palm kernel oil. The palmoil is the extract from mesocarp, which its oil is reddish in colouras well as a good source of beta-carotene. The edible oil frommesocarp is usually further processed as margarine, cooking oiland any other food industry products. Meanwhile, the oil extractedfrom the fruit’s kernel is usually utilized as the main stock in thenon-food industry. Commonly, the kernel oil is further processedin soaps, toiletries, cosmetics, detergents and candles production(Plantation, 2014).

In the recent years, Malaysia’s oil palm production has beenshowing an increasing trend following the areas of planted oilpalms. In Fig. 5, it shows that the planted areas reached the highestin 2014 by 5,392.2 kilo-hectares. With this trend, the plantationareas are expected to keep expanding concurrently with the crudepalm oil production. As the result, in 2014 the production of crude

asses (Resources, 2007).

Fig. 4. Oil palm planation distribution in Malaysia (MPOB, 2010a).

15,500

16,000

16,500

17,000

17,500

18,000

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

4,200

4,400

4,600

4,800

5,000

5,200

5,400

5,600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Kilo

-ton

nes

Kilo

-hec

tare

Year

Planted areas (kilohectare) Crude palm oil (kilotonnes)

Fig. 5. Malaysia’s oil palm planted areas and crude oil palm production 2009–2014(MPOB, 2010b, 2012, 2014).

50 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

palm oil reached the highest by 19,667 kt. This figure in 2009 wasonly reached 17,564.9 kt and fell down in the next year to16,993.7 kt. However the production was recovered soon and thenumber went up in 2011 and increased through the years to themost recent years. Sime Darby Plantation (2014) reported thatMalaysia grows as the second largest oil palm producer from 15%of its total land area, which around 5.1 million hectares. Oil palmplantation occupies 77% of the whole agricultural land inMalaysia. Oil palm plantation industry is one of the main industriesin Malaysia due to its natural resources ability. This industry alsosustains Malaysia’s economy growth as it provides the stabilityeconomically for the nation as well as the smallholders. Malaysiaoil palm plantation gives financial opportunity to around 570,000employees who work in this industry. Malaysia has been takingcare of this opportunity coming from oil palm plantation; researchand development of oil palm has been started since in the 1960s.Malaysia has a special body for the concern of oil palm,Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), which was established in 2000.

With the spectacular Malaysia’s capacity in oil palm plantation,Malaysia could enhance this sector into renewable energy sector asthe effort in the energy sustainability. The activities in oil palmindustry yield tremendous traces of unused waste (biomass),including frond, trunk, mesocarp fibre, palm kernel shell andempty fruit bunch (EFB). In a study by Kong et al. (2014), it is statedthat the generation of oil palm trunk and oil palm frond combinedis 3 tonnes/ha of planted areas. Another study that shows tremen-dous oil palm biomass generation is done by Yusoff (2006), whoreported that in each of a fresh fruit bunch (FFB) the percentageof EFB is 22%; kernel shell is 5.5%; and mesocarp fibre is 13.5%.Another biomass, palm oil mill effluent (POME) is reported toaccount 3.7 tonnes of POME for every tonne of crude palm oil pro-duced (Prasertsan and Prasertsan, 1996). Using these figures, theproduction of oil palm biomass is computed accordingly and isshown in Table 3. Following the trend of FFB production, the bio-mass from oil palm also displays a positive slope from year 2009to 2014. Year 2014 is recorded as the year of which produced themost FFB as well as its biomass. Generation of kernel shell wasas much as 5,525,154 tonnes; mesocarp fibre was 13,561,741 ton-nes; frond and trunk was 16,176,705 tonnes; EFB was 22,100,614tonnes; and being the most generated biomass, POME was pro-duced 72,767,726 tonnes.

Compositions of oil palm biomasses are tabulated in Table 4(Kelly-Yong et al., 2007; Loh et al., 2012; O-Thong et al., 2012).As the potential feedstock in second generation ethanol produc-tion, EFB holds the most cellulose component (38.3%) than theother biomasses. Oil palm frond, however, serves the most hemi-cellulose component (40.4%), which is also convertible into fer-mentable sugar releasing ethanol. Potential annual ethanolproduction can be estimated through the sequential steps of theannual calculation of (i) planted areas and crude oil produced;(ii) fresh fruit bunch (FFB) produced; (iii) oil palm biomasses gen-erated; and (iv) cellulose and hemicellulose components of eachbiomass, which are represented by Fig. 5, Tables 3 and 4. In thispaper, after the amounts of cellulose and hemicellulose fractions

Table 3FFB and biomass production in Malaysia 2009–2014.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fresh fruit bunch, FFB (tonnes)a 90,070,272 87,388,201 98,452,146 95,903,189 99,469,636 100,457,338

Biomass producedKernel shell (tonnes) 4,953,865 4,806,351 5,414,868 5,274,675 5,470,830 5,525,154Frond and trunk (tonnes) 14,073,480 14,540,466 15,000,327 15,230,787 15,689,217 16,176,705Empty fruit bunch, EFB (tonnes) 19,815,460 19,225,404 21,659,472 21,098,702 21,883,320 22,100,614Mesocarp fibre (tonnes) 12,159,487 11,797,407 13,291,040 12,946,930 13,428,401 13,561,741Palm oil mill effluent, POME (tonnes) 64,990,267 62,876,753 69,972,624 69,505,014 71,100,898 72,767,726

a Source: MPOB (2010b, 2012, 2014).

Table 4Oil palm biomass composition (Kelly-Yong et al., 2007; Loh et al., 2012; O-Thonget al., 2012).

Biomass Cellulose (%) Hemicellulose (%) Lignin (%) Ash (%)

Kernel shell 20.8 22.7 50.7 1.0Frond 30.4 40.4 21.7 5.8Trunk 34.5 31.8 25.7 4.3EFB 38.3 35.3 22.1 1.6Mesocarp fibre 33.9 26.1 27.7 3.5POME 11.0 7.0 42.0 –

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 51

in the biomass calculated, the potential bioethanol amounted fromcellulose component was then calculated by Eq. (1), while fromhemicellulose component was calculated by Eq. (2). However, cal-culation for oil palm frond and trunk was performed by taking theaverage percentage of cellulose and hemicellulose from both bio-masses, since the values are close to each other and only genera-tion data of combined frond and trunk was provided. Sincetypically each biomass has both cellulose and hemicellulose com-ponents, the total bioethanol potential is a sum of the potentialfrom both components, as tabulated in Table 5.

Following the positive growth of planted areas and FFB produc-tion from 2009 to 2014, the ethanol production would also poten-tially growing accordingly. Ethanol from EFB gives the mostproportion amongst that of other oil palm biomasses, which couldhave had reached above 4 million tonnes in 2014. In the same year,mesocarp fibre biomass could have had potentially produced onlyabout half of by EFB, while combined oil palm frond and trunkpotentially could have had produced about 2.9 million tonnes ofpotential ethanol. From the tremendous annual yield, POME couldhave had potentially produced bioethanol of more than 3 milliontonnes per year, even though POME contains the least amount ofcellulose and hemicellulose component. The least potential ethanolproduction is by kernel shell, which could have had amounted asabout 600 kt per year. Serves as the biggest account in the nation’sagricultural waste, oil palm biomasses could sustain Malaysia’sbioethanol supply from the enormous potential that could haveproduced, which averagely of 12 million tonnes yearly.

Researchers have shown the interest in actualising the bioetha-nol production from oil palm biomasses. Ishola et al. (2014) devel-oped a different pre-treatments of EFB to produce bioethanol. Thestudy resulted ethanol of 4.1 g/L by without pre-treatment of EFB

Table 5Potential ethanol production from oil palm biomasses in Malaysia (tonnes).

Source 2009 2010 2011

Kernel shell 562,058.79 545,322.06 614,363Frond and trunk 2,513,572.60 2,596,977.92 2,679,11EFB 3,821,802.36 3,707,998.48 4,177,45Mesocarp fibre 1,939,927.28 1,882,161.02 2,120,45POME 3,142,098.73 3,039,916.21 3,382,98

Total 11,979,459.76 11,772,375.68 12,974,3

after 96 h of fermentation; 62.8% after 48 h of simultaneous sac-charification and fermentation (SSF) with combination of biologi-cal and chemical pre-treatment; and 89.4% after SSF with onlypre-treated by phosphoric acid. With the same EFB as the biomass,Park et al. (2013) investigated the effect of SSF method at fed-batchmode, releasing ethanol of 62.5 g/L or 70.6% theoretically. Junget al. (2011) treated EFB with aqueous ammonia pre-treatment,resulting 65.5% ethanol theoretical yield after 168 h fermentation.Millati et al. (2011) employed two different fermentation agents,resulting 2.3 g/L or 45% theoretical ethanol yield after 68 h fermen-tation by Mucor indicus; and 2.4 g/L or 46% theoretical ethanol yieldafter 48 h fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Srimachaiet al. (2014) treated oil palm frond (OPF) with different techniques,which water pre-treatment assisted with microwave yielded themost ethanol of 0.32 g-ethanol/g-glucose experimentally or0.51 g-ethanol/g-glucose (62.75%) theoretically. Ofori-Boatengand Lee (2013) performed bioethanol production from OPFthrough ultrasonic-assisted organosolv/H2O2 pre-treatment(UOP), yielding the maximum ethanol concentration of 18.2 g/l(57%).

Besides its potential to be converted directly to bioethanol(from the cellulose and hemicellulose contents), palm oil mill efflu-ent (POME) is also functional in different routes of bioenergy pro-duction. Lam and Lee (2011) studied the usability of POME as thesustainability effort, since it is indeed classified as the major resi-due in oil palm mills processing industry. The effects from ignoredand untreated POME are both air (emission of biomethane) andwater pollution to the environment. The study measured theharms to the environment through the amount of biochemical oxy-gen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD), whichPOME yields averagely 25,000 and 51,000 mg/L. The numbers donot meet the standard requirement released by the Malaysia’s gov-ernment through Environmental Quality Act 1974, which stan-dardize 50 mg/L for BOD discharge and 100 mg/L for CODdischarge (Konsortium, 2013) for standard B of downstream efflu-ent type. POME is able to act as the nutrients provider for algae,which is the feedstock of third generation bioethanol production.Commonly in the form of nitrate, POME carries 520 mg/L of totalnitrogen while the standard effluent limits to only 200 mg/L. Theexcess of nitrate can be processed to grow the algae since algaeonly need 100–400 mg/L of nitrate concentration as the fertilizer(Li et al., 2008). In fact, other nutrients that algae need to grow

2012 2013 2014

.57 598,457.50 620,712.93 626,876.420.70 2,720,271.66 2,802,148.86 2,889,215.916.52 4,069,300.84 4,220,629.96 4,262,539.495.51 2,065,556.24 2,142,370.13 2,163,643.191.85 3,360,374.22 3,437,530.77 3,518,117.26

68.14 12,813,960.46 13,223,392.65 13,460,392.28

52 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

are also present in POME, namely, iron, zinc, phosphor, magne-sium, calcium and potassium (Habib et al., 1998). Besides essentialfor bioethanol production, POME also can be converted into biodie-sel similarly through algae (Ahmed et al., 2010).

Oil palm can be the primary biomass resource in Malaysia forbioethanol production, as seen from the rising annual oil palm bio-masses generation. As the results, the potential bioethanol produc-tion from oil palm biomasses (Table 5) would expect to follow theincreasing trend as well. With this, Malaysia would be able to setthe fundamental base for the nation’s ethanol sustainability. Thisis also supported by the mentioned aggressive studies of experi-mental investigations of oil palm biomasses as second generationethanol production, which leads to the viable prospective potentialof ethanol conversion from these biomasses for the bigger produc-tion scale. With this approach, therefore, non-renewable energydemand and environmental harms are near to the practicality forMalaysia to own.

3.2. Paddy/rice biomass

As one of the primary consumers of rice in Asia, rice productionin Malaysia serves an important role in the nation’s agriculturalindustry. The geographic location and such fertile soil conditionof Malaysia of which in tropical region makes the rice productionin the country sustainable. Malaysia separates the paddy fieldaccording to the water provision area: wetland and dryland paddy.Paddy planting in wetland must provide sufficient watering streamof which in the form of irrigation. On the other hand, drylandpaddy is planted on either lower or upper terrain of which itswater provision is entirely by rainfall. In addition, Malaysia dividesthe annual paddy plating into main and off season. Main seasonstarts from the beginning of August to the end of February in thenext year, where commonly the plantation grows naturally with-out supporting watering effort. Meanwhile, paddy planting in offseason requires irrigation to sustain the growing. Off season is

Fig. 6. Paddy planting area in peninsular Malaysia. The notes are the major paddy p

typically starts from beginning of March to the end of July in thesame year (Malaysia, 2014). For simplicity purpose, the data pre-sented in this paper is the average data with no separate details.Fig. 6 shows the paddy plantation distribution in peninsularMalaysia along with granary area locations (Division, 2013).

In Malaysia’s agriculture sector, paddy production is the thirdbiggest after oil palm and rubber plant. The primary paddy planta-tion is located in peninsular Malaysia, with supplementary produc-tion from the east Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) where drylandpaddy plantation is possible. Last reported by Malaysia’sDepartment of Agriculture (2014), in 2012 paddy productionreached about 2.6 million tonnes and increased to about 2.615 mil-lion tonnes in 2013, which the largest national paddy productionsince 1980, as displayed in Table 6 (Malaysia, 2014). Averagely,paddy production in 2012 arrived at figure 3797 kg/ha of paddyplantation area. As displayed in Fig. 7, average paddy yielded perhectare area tends to have an increasing trend despite theunsteady available planted area through the past decades(Malaysia, 2013). Similarly, rice production in Malaysia followsthe trend of paddy plantation that shows a positive trend inFig. 8 (Malaysia, 2013).

The tremendous paddy production in Malaysia sure generatesnumerous amount of waste as well. Table 7 provides the ratios ofrice husk and rice straw proportion in a typical paddy production.Obtained from various sources (Hashim, 2005; Jinming andOverend, 1998; Koopmans and Koppejan, 1997; Kumar andBandyopadhyay, 2006; Maiorella, 1983; Purohit, 2009; Saha andCotta, 2008; Tripathi et al., 1998; UNEP, 2009), ratio of rice huskin paddy plant in average is 0.269, while for rice straw is 1.338,of which these average figures were selected in our analysis.Using these ratios for respective paddy biomasses, and with annualdata of paddy production in Malaysia (from Fig. 8), rice husk andstraw generation were estimated and served in Table 9. The totalpaddy biomass estimation follows the annual Malaysia’s paddyproduction, which gives a slow positive trend through the years.

lantation (granary area, for more than 4000 hectares per site) (Division, 2013).

Table 6Malaysia’s paddy production 2004–2013 by states (Malaysia, 2014).

State Year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Peninsular (tonnes)Kedah 857,225 880,976 776,490 911,295 867,335 923,666 835,630 878,430 856,245 889,167Perak 232,472 245,951 233,923 259,081 280,237 311,150 294,705 323,445 368,237 360,135Kelantan 216,078 227,407 238,434 249,440 232,309 265,289 271,300 272,805 250,308 215,255Perlis 196,496 199,482 170,541 198,025 233,145 235,681 222,884 232,674 246,982 251,449Selangor 182,597 178,837 176,794 186,951 177,445 202,633 210,291 221,295 226,580 237,594Penang 107,125 105,896 114,488 120,286 120,075 133,048 142,434 144,613 142,762 145,127Terengganu 71,844 57,973 59,672 62,253 63,491 69,589 74,962 77,796 77,501 81,226Pahang 24,025 22,438 22,282 22,673 21,384 30,084 25,312 27,110 34,594 31,471Johor 10,219 9,057 5,738 9,221 8,128 9,659 11,225 11,477 11,600 13,400Negeri sembilan 10,247 6016 6863 5091 5437 7290 8830 6447 8463 8425Melaka 2791 3060 8641 7225 4159 5551 5071 7505 7665 9957

East Malaysia (tonnes)Sarawak 218,449 226,766 239,786 209,679 206,753 185,693 214,656 242,669 241,684 253,740Sabah 161,785 149,618 133,866 134,384 133,138 131,709 147,531 132,253 126,761 118,899Malaysia total (tonnes) 2,291,353 2,313,477 2,187,518 2,375,604 2,353,036 2,511,042 2,464,831 2,578,519 2,599,382 2,615,845

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

5,80,000

6,00,000

6,20,000

6,40,000

6,60,000

6,80,000

7,00,000

7,20,000

7,40,000 Av

erga

e pa

ddy

yiel

ded

(kg/

ha)

Year produc�on

Plan

ted

area

(ha)

Planted area (ha) Average paddy yielded (kg/ha)

Fig. 7. Malaysia’s paddy plantation area and average paddy yield 1980–2013(Malaysia, 2013).

0

5,00,000

10,00,000

15,00,000

20,00,000

25,00,000

30,00,000

Tonn

es

Year Paddy produc�on Rice produc�on

Fig. 8. Malaysia’s paddy and rice production 1980–2012 (Malaysia, 2013).

Table 7Paddy waste ratio.

Paddywaste type

Ratio of wastegenerated

References

Rice husk 0.2 Saha and Cotta (2008), Kumar andBandyopadhyay (2006)

0.22 Hashim (2005)0.2–0.33 Koopmans and Koppejan (1997)0.23 (based onprocessed rice)

Kumar and Bandyopadhyay (2006)

0.25 Tripathi et al. (1998)0.33 (based on grainsproduced)

Purohit (2009)

Rice straw 0.4 Hashim (2005)0.41–3.96 Koopmans and Koppejan (1997)0.623 Jinming and Overend (1998)1–1.5 Maiorella (1983)1.1 UNEP (2009)1.53 (based on grainsproduced)

Purohit (2009)

Table 8Biomass components in average paddy biomass.

Composition of biomass Rice husk (%) Rice straw (%)

Cellulose 28.6a, 35b 32a, 43b

Hemicellulose 28.6a, 25b 35.7a, 25b

Lignin 24.4a, 20b 22.3a, 12b

Extractive matter 18.4a 10b

a Reported by Worasuwannarak et al. (2007).b Reported by Binod et al. (2010) and Saga et al. (2010).

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 53

From the total biomass generated, potential ethanol productionwas calculated by determining the biomass compositions, whichprimarily are cellulose and hemicellulose.

Table 8 provides the primary lignocellulose composition per-centage in rice husk and straw. To simplify the calculation, averagecellulose and hemicellulose amount of 31.8% and 26.8% for ricehusk; and 37.5% and 30.35% for rice straw respectively wereselected to estimate the ethanol production. For both rice husk

and rice straw, the calculated amount of cellulose was put intoEq. (1) to obtain the potential bioethanol production from cellulosecomponent, while the calculated amount of hemicellulose was putinto Eq. (2). As the results, the annual potential bioethanol produc-tion from these biomasses are presented in Table 9. As seen fromthe same table, ethanol could have had potentially be producedfor above 500 kt since 1993, and the number would be increasedby about 50% in 2013 to about 738.5 kt. The estimation of the sec-ond generation ethanol production from paddy biomass indicatesthe potential of which Malaysia could have had utilized. With thisapproach, it would completely replace the harmful and irresponsi-ble practice of open burning of paddy waste that is typically exe-cuted after harvesting season in Malaysia. This is practicallypolluting the environment and harms people’s health since the

Table 9Paddy biomass generation with potential ethanol production estimation in Malaysia.

Year Paddyproduction(tonnes)

Rice huskgenerated(tonnes)

Rice strawgenerated(tonnes)

Estimated ethanol producedfrom rice husk (tonnes)

Estimated ethanol producedfrom rice straw (tonnes)

Total potential ethanolestimation (tonnes)

1993 2,104,447 565,570 2,814,908 87,693 506,473 594,1661994 2,138,788 574,799 2,860,843 89,124 514,738 603,8621995 2,127,271 571,704 2,845,438 88,644 511,966 600,6101996 2,228,489 598,906 2,980,827 92,862 536,326 629,1881997 2,119,615 569,647 2,835,197 88,325 510,123 598,4481998 1,944,240 522,515 2,600,615 81,017 467,916 548,9331999 2,036,641 547,347 2,724,211 84,868 490,154 575,0222000 2,140,904 575,368 2,863,673 89,212 515,247 604,4592001 2,094,995 563,030 2,802,265 87,299 504,198 591,4972002 2,197,351 590,538 2,939,177 91,564 528,832 620,3962003 2,257,037 606,579 3,019,013 94,052 543,196 637,2482004 2,291,353 615,801 3,064,914 95,481 551,455 646,9372005 2,314,378 621,989 3,095,712 96,441 556,997 653,4382006 2,187,519 587,896 2,926,025 91,155 526,466 617,6202007 2,375,604 638,444 3,177,608 98,992 571,732 670,7242008 2,353,032 632,377 3,147,416 98,052 566,299 664,3512009 2,511,043 674,843 3,358,771 104,636 604,328 708,9642010 2,464,831 662,423 3,296,958 102,710 593,206 695,9162011 2,578,519 692,977 3,449,027 107,448 620,567 728,0152012 2,599,382 698,584 3,476,933 108,317 625,588 733,9052013 2,615,845 703,008 3,498,954 109,003 629,550 738,553

Fig. 9. Pineapple fruit and its biomasses (Valentina, 2013).

54 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

waste tends to haze the air and smouldering (Binod et al., 2010;Poh and Kong, 2002).

Researches have proven the ability of rice husk and rice straw toproduce bioethanol from the reported works. Saha and Cotta(2008) took rice husk as feedstock in bioethanol productionthrough sequential lime pre-treatment, and simultaneous sacchar-ification and fermentation (SFF), resulting 11 g/L ethanol after 53 hof fermentation. Singh et al. (2014) treated rice husk with alkaliwith microwave assisted, resulting 0.36 g-ethanol/g-substrate byScheffersomyces stipitis; 0.4 g-ethanol/g-substrate by S. cerevisiae;and 0.42 g-ethanol/g-substrate by their co-culture. Roslan et al.(2011) converted rice straw into ethanol by employing cellulaseproduced from local Aspergillus sp., resulting 62.61% theoreticalethanol or 0.102 g ethanol/g rice straw. Aditiya et al. (2015) useddilute sulphuric acid to treat rice straw, resulting 52.75% theoreti-cal ethanol from combination of acid pre-treatment and enzymatichydrolysis, compared to acid pre-treated rice straw alone of whichonly produced 11.26% theoretical ethanol. Amiri et al. (2014) per-formed organosolv pre-treatment to produce bioethanol from ricestraw, producing 22.5 g maximum ethanol generated from 5% ofsolid loading. Okamoto et al. (2011) employed Trametes hirsuta, awhite rot fungus type, to digest rice straw and directly producingbioethanol, 3.0 g/L ethanol or 57.4% theoretical yield.

As the primary food commodity in Malaysia, paddy will alwaysbe produced regularly to fulfil the people’s need. Subsequently, thegeneration of rice husk and straw will also be regularly and abun-dantly accumulated. The potential of bioethanol production fromthese biomasses are seen not only from the rich compounds of cel-lulose and hemicellulose, but also proven from the many experi-mental works reported the compatibility of rice husk and strawin bioethanol production. In fact, the projection of the bioethanolproduction potential from these biomasses would suffice thebioethanol supply for the nation as well as reducing the directsmoke-pollution from the common practice to openly burningthe husk and straw in mass.

3.3. Pineapple biomass

Pineapple (Ananas comosus) is a tropical fruit and originallygrown in the eastern part of the South America continent. InMalaysia, pineapple was initially grown as a contour plant and

now is developed as crops plant around Johor’s soft soil area(MPIB, 2014). Pineapple is a non-seasonal type of fruit, hence itcan be cultivated at any year in the tropical climate. As one ofthe tropical countries, Malaysia is ranked as the 18th world’s lar-gest pineapple producer, contributing 334,400 metric-tonnes in2012 according to Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (2014b). Pineapple is commonly consumed bypeeling the fresh fruit or through the canned pineapples, whichsubsequently divide the industry into the direct fruit selling andthe canned pineapple industry. Pineapple cannery industry inMalaysia owns desirable economic value, as in 2006 the canneryindustry brought RM 56.3 million (US$ 16.8 million) only fromthe export sector (MPIB, 2014). Fig. 9 shows the typical biomassof pineapple fruit (Medina and García, 2005; Valentina, 2013).

Malaysia’s pineapple production industry is supervised andauthorized by Lembaga Perindustrian Nanas Malaysia, LPNM(Malaysian Pineapple Industry Board, MPIB), that was establishedin 1957. Until today, MPIB supports the pineapple fresh fruit andprocessed pineapple industries by financing agronomy researches

0

50,000

1,00,000

1,50,000

2,00,000

2,50,000

3,00,000

3,50,000

4,00,000

4,50,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pineapple leaf generated Pineapple peel generated Pineapple produc�on

Fig. 10. Malaysia’s pineapple and its biomasses production year 2000–2012 (MPIB,2012).

Table 11Potential ethanol production from pineapple biomasses in Malaysia.

Year Pineappleproduction(tonnes)

Potential ethanolproduction frompineapple peel(tonnes)

Potential ethanolproduction frompineapple leaf(tonnes)

Totalpotentialethanolproduction(tonnes)

2000 249,135 24,372 8270 32,6422001 288,938 28,265 9591 37,8572002 310,000 30,326 10,290 40,6162003 320,000 31,304 10,622 41,9262004 330,000 32,282 10,954 43,2372005 340,000 33,260 11,286 44,5472006 299,328 29,282 9936 39,2182007 316,210 30,933 10,497 41,4302008 384,673 37,631 12,769 50,4002009 357,654 34,987 11,872 46,8602010 331,081 32,388 10,990 43,3782011 309,331 30,260 10,268 40,5282012 335,488 32,819 11,137 43,956

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 55

regarding pineapple industry, quality control of the nation’spineapple products, pineapple market price controlling, and docu-menting, reporting pineapple industry related statistics (MPIB,2013). Pineapple plantation and industry have put Malaysia intoa favourable economically. However, the more pineapple beingharvested, the more of its waste generated consequently. Fig. 10displays the rather steady trend of pineapple production inMalaysia along with its biomasses generation from year 2000–2012 (MPIB, 2012). As a typical pineapple fruit yields leaf (crown)and peel as waste, the total biomass of pineapple is seen about halfamount of the fresh fruit produced annually. The figures aresourced from waste composition by weight in a typical fresh fruitreported by Medina and García (2005), which is mentioned as 41%of peel and 20% of leaf (crown). In 2012, there was 335,488 tonnespineapple produced in Malaysia, yielding 67,098 and 137,550 ton-nes of pineapple leaf and peel respectively. The numbers generatedare fluctuating throughout the years, with year 2008 being themaximum fresh pineapple, pineapple leaf and peel production(384,673, 76,935, and 157,716 tonnes respectively).

Pineapple is consumed by removing the peel and its crown. Aswell as in the pineapple cannery industry, the pineapple peel is dis-carded, and where only the pulp is further processed into the can.This activity, therefore, resulting pile of pineapple peel waste reg-ularly, and without any further plan to utilize the waste it wouldonly be thrown as domestic trash. However, looking from its com-positions, pineapple peel holds the potential in second generationbioethanol production. As an agricultural waste, pineapple peelcarries amounts of hemicellulose, cellulose, sugar and other carbo-hydrates. In fact, experimental results of pineapple peel’s composi-tions are reported in a study by Choonut et al. (2014) by varyingthe method of pre-treatment as shown in Table 10. This studyreveals that pineapple peel waste is majorly composed of hemicel-lulose and cellulose structures. In fact, these components playimportant role in the bioethanol production as the components

Table 10Pineapple peel compositions by different pre-treatment methods (Choonut et al., 2014).

Physical pre-treatment Chemical pre-treatment Li

No pre-treatment No pre-treatmentUltrasonic (for 60 min) H3PO4 1

CH3COOH 1Microwave (for 3 min) (NH4)2SO4

H3PO4Water bath (at 100 �C and 240 min) H2O 1

H3PO4 1Stream explosion (at 121 �C and 60 min) H3PO4 2

CH3COOH

to be hydrolyzed. Similarly, a study on chemical composition ofpineapple leaf (crown) is reported by Minowa et al. (1998), whichthey reported it contains 32.16% and 63.2% of cellulose and holo-cellulose, or 31.05% of hemicellulose. These figures of chemicalcompositions of pineapple biomasses (peel and leaf) are purposefulfor the potential estimation of second generation ethanolproduction.

The calculation to determine the theoretical potential bioetha-nol production from pineapple peel was initiated by calculatingthe amount of cellulose and hemicellulose compounds accountedfrom the total peel generated (Fig. 10). For simplification purpose,the fraction values of cellulose and hemicellulose were taken fromTable 10 which with no pre-treatment. The values, then, weredrawn into Eq. (1) (for cellulose component) and Eq. (2) (for hemi-cellulose component). The similar method was also done forpineapple leaf biomass, which cellulose fraction of 32.16% andhemicellulose fraction of 31.04% by Minowa et al. (1998). The totalpotential bioethanol (from peel, leaf, and sum of both) is servedyearly in Table 11. The annual ethanol production from pineapplebiomasses could have had potentially yielded as much as about50 kt in year 2008 due to the highest pineapple productionrecorded, and above 40 kt in the year of 2012. These figures arethe evidence that Malaysia’s pineapple production could poten-tially support the sustainable effort in reducing fossil fuel demandby converting the lignocellulosic compounds of pineapple biomassinto second generation ethanol. In fact, looking from the steadyproduction of pineapple in Malaysia, it is promising that thebioethanol from pineapple biomasses could pleasantly contributeto the nation’s bioethanol supply.

It is indeed uncommon to find reported works on the effort toconvert pineapple peel and leaf into bioethanol. However, a recentwork by Choonut et al. (2014) fermented pineapple peel using dif-ferent fermentation agents. After 72 h of fermentation by S.

gnin (%) Ash (%) Hemicellulose (%) Cellulose (%)

2.68 ± 1.54 0.38 ± 0.25 74.96 ± 2.55 21.98 ± 2.341.20 ± 0.14 0.41 ± 0.04 57.84 ± 1.65 30.55 ± 1.841.02 ± 2.50 0.24 ± 0.34 52.77 ± 1.00 35.99 ± 1.857.76 ± 1.03 0.37 ± 0.04 59.87 ± 0.71 32.01 ± 0.359.58 ± 1.40 0.24 ± 0.28 53.54 ± 1.20 36.96 ± 1.940.24 ± 0.63 0.96 ± 0.81 51.13 ± 6.77 37.68 ± 6.974.63 ± 2.70 0.67 ± 6.65 42.83 ± 2.93 41.86 ± 1.285.15 ± 1.10 4.10 ± 3.39 42.91 ± 10.61 27.84 ± 6.895.06 ± 0.21 0.31 ± 0.21 69.10 ± 3.42 25.54 ± 3.41

Table 12Malaysia’s banana production 2007–2012.

Year Banana produced(tonnes) (FAOSTAT,2014a)

Total biomass produced (by 2.4 ratio ofbiomass/production, in tonnes) (Jinguraand Matengaifa, 2008)

2007 260,911 626,186.42008 273,331 655,994.42009 279,762 671,428.82010 332,639 798,333.62011 306,283 735,079.22012 335,974 806,337.6

Table 13General banana biomass components.

Component Amount (%)

Lignin 10.65a

27.11b

10.74c

15.22d

Cellulose 28.92a

Hemicellulose 25.23a

Holocellulose (comprised of hemicellulose and cellulose) 42.01b

69.78c

55.62d

68.79e

Alpha-cellulose 30.13b

51.52c

48.16d

a Reported by Reddy et al. (2010).b Reported by El-Zawawy et al. (2011), whose values were recorded according to

the pre-treatment: steam explosion pre-treatment.c Reported by El-Zawawy et al. (2011), whose values were recorded according to

the pre-treatment: alkaline pulping pre-treatment.d Reported by El-Zawawy et al. (2011), whose values were recorded according to

the pre-treatment: alkali microwave pre-treatment.e Reported by El-Zawawy et al. (2011), whose values were recorded according to

the pre-treatment: water hydrolysis (autoclave) pre-treatment.

56 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

cerevisiae, it yielded 9.69 g/L ethanol; and Enterobacter aerogenesmanaged to yield 1.38 g/L of ethanol. Additional technique, immo-bilized cell technique, managed to yield 11.63 g/L ethanol by S.cerevisiae, and 1.66 g/L ethanol by E. aerogenes under the same fer-mentation period.

It is even rarer to find research on bioethanol production frompineapple leaf; most of the works took rotten pineapple juice asthe feedstock in bioethanol production (Domínguez-Bocanegraet al., 2014; Nigam, 1999; Ruangviriyachai et al., 2010; Tanakaet al., 1999). However, this paper does not present the potentialbioethanol production estimation from pineapple juice waste sincethere is no known specific pineapple juice waste generation annualdata in Malaysia. More research to prove the suitability of pineap-ple peel and leaf in second generation bioethanol production isstrongly advised, and also is possible looking from the adequatelignocellulosic content in the biomass.

3.4. Banana biomass

As one of the countries within the tropical geographical region,Malaysia is suitable for banana to grow. Banana requires an ade-quate average temperature (26.67 �C) and 10 cm (or not exceeding3 months full of dry season) of minimum rainfall monthly. Bananagrows comfortably within the Malaysia’s geographical location,which in between 30� north latitude and 30� south latitude. Thefavourability of banana that is able to be planted with the othertropical trees, for instance durian, cocoa, rubber and oil palm,makes it as one of the most common and most consumed fruitsin the nation (Abdul Khalil et al., 2006).

Banana plant in general produces biomass of pseudostem, peelsand spoiled fruits. Pseudostem covers the most in a banana tree asthe provider of the fruition. The banana tree pseudostem will dieonce after it bears fruit, and will be replaced with the next newpseudostem. The dead pseudostem is usually not further processedand it the biggest biomass portion of a banana plant. The pseu-dostem also provides the leaf layers, which are sized around 30–60 cm wide for each leaf up to 2-m long and 30 leafs in a tree,and it also where the leaf’s crown is (Abdul Khalil et al., 2006).Banana peel is very uncommon to be consumed in generalalthough it contains high amount carbohydrate (News, 2006).Banana peel surrounds the edible flesh of the fruit and normallyis thrown out as the litter. From the total weight fruit produced,banana peel biomass covers 30–40% (Emaga et al., 2008). Spoiledbanana fruit is not produced any lesser in the practice. The spoiledbanana fruit is the rejected fruit due to the unqualified consumablequality. In the common banana production, about 30% of the totalfruits are rejected due to its undesired quality. The rotten fruitsbecause unsold are also put into the account of spoiled banana bio-mass. With all these three kinds of banana biomass, they sum up toa very tremendous amount as the litter. In fact, the large produc-tion of banana biomass in Malaysia could cause a serious harm intothe local air. The decomposed banana wastes without any propertreatment could release hazardous gases to the surrounding envi-ronment (e.g. ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, etc.) (Ilori et al., 2007).

The total banana production in Malaysia shows an increasingtrend from 2007 to 2012 (Table 12). Although Malaysia is not thenumber one world’s producer, the amount of banana productionin Malaysia is large enough for its residue to be produced as well.Averagely, banana peel-only residue was exerted about 117,250tonnes in 2012, and the numbers is predicted rising by looking atthe positive trend of the banana fruit production. This huge num-ber of the peel waste produced is worrying enough to the environ-ment as well as to the public health’s regarding to the litter. Insimple calculation using biomass to total banana production ratioof 2.4 obtained from a study by Jingura and Matengaifa (2008),about more than 800 kt of total banana biomass was estimated

produced in 2012, as seen in Table 12. To tackle this, banana bio-mass conversion into value-added product is strongly advisable.Generally, biomass from banana contains quite low lignin compo-nent, even though the waste is naturally fibrous. The componentscontained in the average banana biomass are 28.92% of cellulose,25.23% of hemicellulose and 10.56% of lignin (Reddy et al., 2010).Different pre-treatment affects the resulting compositions of thebanana biomass, as studied by El-Zawawy et al. (2011), they founddifferent components amount by routes of steam explosion, alka-line pulping, alkali microwave and water hydrolysis (through auto-clave), as presented in Table 13. The reported components actuallyindicate that banana biomass is able to be converted into biofuelsince these components are the principles in the process of bio-mass conversion into biofuel.

The potential bioethanol production calculation was initiatedwith preparation of the total amount of cellulose and hemicellu-lose by taking the total biomass produced (Table 12). In this calcu-lation, the used values of cellulose and hemicellulose fraction weretaken from Reddy et al. (2010), as claimed suitable for the averagebanana biomass. The total amount of cellulose form banana bio-mass was then put into Eq. (1), while total hemicellulose amountwas put into Eq. (2) to compute the potential bioethanol produc-tion from the biomass. The Malaysia’s annual potential bioethanolproduction from banana biomass is presented in Table 14, whichshows the annual breakdown of potential bioethanol from cellu-lose and hemicellulose, as well as the sum of both. From the num-bers resulted, Malaysia could have had the potential to produceabout 115 kt of bioethanol in 2012 based on the lignocellulosic

Table 14Estimation of bioethanol production from banana biomass in Malaysia.

Year Cellulose content(dry wt tonnes)

Hemicellulose content(dry wt tonnes)

Potential bioethanol producedfrom cellulose (tonnes)

Potential bioethanol produced fromhemicellulose (tonnes)

Total potential bioethanolproduced (tonnes)

2007 181,093 157,987 52,757 36,791 89,5482008 189,714 165,507 55,269 38,543 93,8112009 194,177 169,401 56,569 39,449 96,0182010 230,878 201,420 67,261 46,906 114,1672011 212,585 185,460 61,932 43,189 105,1212012 233,193 203,439 67,935 47,376 115,311

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 57

characteristic of banana biomass only (Table 14). Moreover, a pos-itive trend of potential ethanol production is seen from 2007 to2012 as the production of banana increased.

In the attempt to actualise the potential of banana biomass inbioethanol production, Oberoi et al. (2011b) took dried bananapeel biomass in simultaneous saccharification and fermentation(SSF) process, resulting 28.2 g/L of ethanol. Another attempt wasperformed by Oberoi et al. (2011a) to produce high sugar yieldby optimizing the hydrolysis stage, which resulting amount of glu-cose and reducing sugars yielded of 28.2 g/L and 48 g/L respec-tively. The information on considerably high amount of theyielded sugar from this study furnishes the potential of bananapeel in second generation bioethanol production since it dependson the amount of reducing sugars provided for the fermentationagent to proceed the metabolic activity and brings ethanol as theby-product.

The fact that banana biomass is holding the large potential toproduce bioethanol makes Malaysia is generally ready. Eventhough banana plant is not the nation’s top gross contributor,Malaysia could feasibly generate bioethanol capacity much morewith other agricultural biomasses produced naturally. In addition,more practical studies in utilizing banana biomass in bioethanolproduction are recommended to bring the conceptual theory closerto the actual mass application and implementation.

Fig. 11. Durian fruit with its seed and cross section of the spiked rind (Nooten,1863).

0.0

50,000.0

1,00,000.0

1,50,000.0

2,00,000.0

2,50,000.0

3,00,000.0

3,50,000.0

4,00,000.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tonn

es

Year Na�onal produc�on Imports Total na�onal supply Exports

Fig. 12. Malaysia’s durian production and export 2006–2013 (Statistics, 2011,2014).

3.5. Durian biomass

Known as the ‘king of fruits’, durian (Durio zibethinus as one ofthe known species) is one favourite fruit to Malaysian and otherSouth East Asia’s people, including Thailand and Indonesia.Durian fruit is an exotic fruit natives in South East Asia, specificallyaround Borneo (Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia) and Mindanao(Philippines) regions (Brown, 1997). Typically the trees can growto about 25–50 m tall, and each durian fruit weighs 1–3 kg withaverage fruit’s length 30 cm and diameter 15 cm. Annual fruitingperiod of durian depends on the land condition, species and culti-vars, which varies from one to two times in a year. Durian fruit hasa strong morphological characteristic, which is its sharp spikedrind (Fig. 11) (Brown, 1997; Nooten, 1863). Moreover durian hasa very strong and distinguishable aroma, making it as a restrictedfruit to be carried individually at certain public places such ashotels and airports. However, durian flesh is juicy and sweet, andit has some comparable exterior features with jackfruit althoughthey are completely distinct.

In production-wise, although it is not its original native,Thailand serves as the largest durian producer and exporter, fol-lowed by Malaysia and Indonesia accordingly. As reported byFood and Agricultural Organization (2001), Thailand producedabout 781,000 tonnes while Malaysia and Indonesia shared similarfigure at about 265,000 tonnes durian production in 1999. Sincethen, Malaysia has been showing rising durian production trendto sustain its supply and export demand. In 2006, Malaysia pro-duced 292,681 tonnes of durian fruits that was exported as much17,045.1 tonnes. The figures were amplified in the 2013 production

and export as which 373,084 and 20,152.4 tonnes respectively(Fig. 12) (Statistics, 2011, 2014).

In an average mature durian fruit, aril or flesh, the edible partconstituents only about 33% of the whole, while the rest is

Table 16Durian rind constituent (Khedari et al., 2003).

Composition Content (%)

Alpha-cellulose 60.45Ash 4.35Hemicellulose 13.09Holocellulose 73.54Lignin 15.45

58 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

normally left unconsumed, thrown, not further processed. Thewaste of the fruit is typically divided as the seeds and rind thatare accounted at about 20–25% and 42–47% respectively (Amidand Mirhosseini, 2012). It is rather unusual to take durian’s wastefor any further application. In fact, Malaysia’s consumers are regu-larly taking the durian fruit and consume it at the selling stalls,leaving the fruit’s waste at the stalls where the seller collects thewastes and treat as any common food garbage. However, thereare several studies have been reported to take advantage the wasteof this tropical fruit. Durian seed has been reported to be capable asthe emulsifier in the making of vegan mayonnaise (Cornelia et al.,2015); as the low cost hydrocolloid source from its extracted gum(Amid and Mirhosseini, 2012); as the source of biodegradable filmproduction (Pimpa et al., 2012); to improve materials as compos-ited with polypropylene and high density polyethylene (Osmanand Zakaria, 2012); source of b-galactosidase for dairy productsproduction (El-Tanboly, 2001); and as stabilizer substance forwater in oil in water emulsion based form its conjugated whey pro-tein isolate (Tabatabaee Amid and Mirhosseini, 2014). Meanwhile,durian rind has been reported to be beneficial in immobilizationsupporting material for probiotic strains (Teh et al., 2009); inwastewater treatment as biosorbent with high capacity(Kurniawan et al., 2011); in biocomposite reinforcement with poly-lactic acid (Manshor et al., 2014); and as main biomaterial in a newparticleboards production for walls and ceiling insulation purposes(Khedari et al., 2003).

Even after all those innovations of the waste of durian, it israther rare to find durian waste as the source of bioethanol produc-tion as the auxiliary in renewable energy innovation. As the matterof fact, composition of which durian waste holds fits the funda-mental requirement of second generation bioethanol production,which are regarded as agricultural waste and is a source of carbo-hydrate. The seed and rind of durian are both agricultural wasteand are the source of carbohydrate in starch and lignocelluloseform respectively. Durian seed contains 73.9% and 76.8% of carbo-hydrate (in the form of starch) in floured and peeled floured formsrespectively as reported by Amiza and Roslan (2009). The figure isdifferent as reported by Brown (1997) that of 43.6% of durian seedis served as carbohydrate, as shown in Table 15. Durian rind, in theother hand, is rich in cellulosic component as the manner of carbo-hydrate source. Khedari et al. (2003) reported it contains 60.45%alpha-cellulose and 13.09% hemicellulose (Table 16).

The potential of second generation bioethanol production fromdurian waste in Malaysia rests on the nation’s production and theamount of the waste generated from this species of fruit in partic-ular. As illustrated in Fig. 12, durian production trend in Malaysiashows a positive manner with the last account being 380,675.3tonnes in 2013. Taking this production fact and composition durianwaste for each fruit, this leads into tremendous amount of durian

Table 15Durian seed constituent.

Component Amount (%) Reference

Carbohydrate 73.9 (flour), 76.8 (flour, peeled) Amiza and Roslan (2009)43.6 Brown (1997)

Moisture 54.9 Srianta et al. (2012)51.5 Brown (1997)6.5 (flour), 6.6 (flour, peeled) Amiza and Roslan (2009)

Protein 3.4 Srianta et al. (2012)2.6 Brown (1997)6.0 (flour), 7.6 (flour, peeled) Amiza and Roslan (2009)

Ash 1.58 Srianta et al. (2012)3.1 (flour), 3.8 (flour, peeled) Amiza and Roslan (2009)

Fat 1.32 Srianta et al. (2012)0.4 (flour), 0.4 (flour, peeled) Amiza and Roslan (2009)

waste generated. Table 17 describes the total durian seed and rindgenerated annually based on average seed and rind constituent of23% and 45% respectively for each mature fruit, from which the fig-ures are the average taken from ref (Amid and Mirhosseini, 2012).An obvious increasing trend is shown from Table 17 of which dis-plays waste seed and rind generation at 68,329.4 tonnes and133,688 tonnes respectively in 2006, while in year 2013 the gener-ation was intensified about 28% to 87,555.3 and 171,303.9 tonnesfor seed and rind waste respectively. This amount is greatly unpro-cessed and generated annually as national domestic waste.Therefore, the concept of utilizing of durian seed and rind as sec-ond generation bioethanol production could play a significantimprovement in renewable energy sector, national economy aswell as environment sustainability.

Analysis of potential ethanol generation from durian biomass inthis study was parted based on the biomass main characteristics:lignocellulosic (from durian rind) and starch (from durian seed).The calculation of potential bioethanol production was started bydetermining the amount of lignocellulosic component from theannual generated durian rind, with cellulose and hemicellulosefraction taken from Table 16. The amount of cellulose, then, wascomputed through Eq. (1) to yield the potential bioethanol thatcould be produced, while the amount of hemicellulose was drawninto Eq. (2) for the same purpose. The total of Malaysia’s potentialbioethanol production from durian rind is presented annually inTable 18, which displays the sum from both cellulose and hemicel-lulose components. As for durian seed, the total amount of starchwas used to calculate the potential bioethanol that could be pro-duced, since starch is the dominant and possible component tobe converted into ethanol. To do so, the authors took fraction valueof starch and moisture from Brown (1997). Subsequently, the totalamount of starch was drawn into Eq. (3), resulting the amount ofpotential bioethanol production from starch-rich material.Likewise, the Malaysia’s annual potential bioethanol productionis presented in Table 18. Since the calculation follows the totalwaste generated annually, the total potential bioethanol producedis expected to follow the durian production trend. Seen fromTable 18, the potential ethanol yield from durian biomasses showrather positive trend with the highest yield in 2013, of which dur-ian seed and durian rind could have had converted into more than13,000 million litres and 35 kt respectively of ethanol.

The tremendous prospective amount of potential bioethanolfrom durian biomasses are supported by technical researches inutilizing the biomasses in second generation bioethanol produc-tion. Aditiya (2014) used durian seed as the feedstock in an effortto produce bioethanol by enzymatic hydrolysis. The study resulted0.618% of experimental ethanol quality after distilled twice. Animprovement effort in ethanol production from durian seed wastewas performed by adding dilute sulphuric acid pre-treatment(Aditiya, 2014), resulting 51.2% of theoretical ethanol. Hanumet al. (2013) performed only acid hydrolysis to durian seed byusing 0.5 M hydrochloric acid beforehand fermentation, resulting19% ethanol after 48 h fermentation. Jhonprimen et al. (2012)employed the types of yeast in fermenting durian seed, yielding24.01% of ethanol by baker’s yeast and 20.37% ethanol using tapai’syeast. Putri (2011) performed biological pre-treatment by different

Table 17Generation of durian waste based on the annual fruit production in Malaysia (tonnes) (Amid and Mirhosseini, 2012).

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total national supply 297,084.4 318,116.9 285,182.9 284,948.1 306,125.5 374,281.6 357,963.7 380,675.3Durian seed waste generated 68,329.4 73,166.9 65,592.1 65,538.1 70,408.9 86,084.8 82,331.7 87,555.3Durian rind waste generated 133,688.0 143,152.6 128,332.3 128,226.6 137,756.5 168,426.7 161,083.7 171,303.9

Table 18Potential ethanol generated from durian biomass in Malaysia year 2006–2013.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Potential ethanol generated from durian seed (million litre) 10,403.3 11,139.8 9,986.5 9,978.3 10,719.9 13,106.5 12,535.1 13,330.4Potential ethanol generated from durian rind (tonnes) 27,618.7 29,574.0 26,512.2 26,490.4 28,459.2 34,795.4 33,278.4 35,389.8

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 59

types of fungi, yielding 0.235% ethanol after pre-treated byRhizopus oryzae. Unhasirikul et al. (2012) studied the sugars com-ponent of durian rind produced by hydrochloric acid hydrolysis,revealing glucose concentration of 17.86 g/L. Although this studydid not execute fermentation, the glucose production indicatesthe capability in ethanol conversion. By assuming undergo com-plete glucose fermentation, the amount of produced glucose canbe theoretically yielding 9.14 g/L of ethanol.

It is, indeed, rather uncommon to see the potential in durianfruit for renewable energy purposes. Moreover, studies of durianwaste conversion to ethanol are can be said in the very preliminaryphase. However, looking at the amount of the waste generatedannually, and the bright potential of durian waste in second gener-ation ethanol production, should trigger the interest for furtherresearches in the future.

4. Conclusion

As a tropical country, Malaysia is rich in biodiversity potential,of which from the perspective of renewable energy it could sus-tains the nation’s demand of biofuel. Sourced from inedible ligno-cellulosic and starchy biomasses, second generation bioethanolproduction does not compete with food stock, thus Malaysia willnot lose its name as a well-nourished country. Resulted from thisstudy, it is estimated that the potential of bioethanol that couldbe produced from the listed biomasses could have reached anenormous amount of more than 13.5 million tonnes of bioethanolonly in 2012. In fact, Malaysia holds the feasible criteria in theroute to potentially produce bioethanol from agricultural wastes,including the geographical location, nourished soil condition, andfavourable rain and sunshine pattern, as well as the selected bio-masses in this paper generally hold annual well-harvesting fre-quency and pattern in Malaysia. Additionally, the presentedresearches in this paper act as the proofs of the ability of these bio-masses to be converted to bioethanol, which narrows the gapbetween theory and prospective actualisation of the bioethanolproduction especially for Malaysia. Besides biomass from oil palm,paddy, pineapple, banana and durian, other agricultural productsare potentially capable as the feedstock in ethanol conversion pur-pose. Although coconut production in Malaysia is inherentlytremendous due its archipelago being, this study does not providethe potential from coconut since there is no clear data separatingproduction of young and mature coconut in Malaysia.

Second generation bioethanol production in Malaysia is theideal for its future to have fully utilized organic biomasses and pro-ducing bioethanol to suppress down the fossil fuel’s usage andharmful impacts. Additionally, to actualise commercial-stagebioethanol plant it requires a complete thoroughtechno-economic analysis of certain selected biomass feedstock

and sequence of methods from biomass collection to the end con-sumers. Kinds of studies in regards of second generation bioetha-nol production, especially on the more variance of potentialbiomass and feasibility studies, are thus contributing to the men-tioned actualization in Malaysia, which are highly advised.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Ministry of HigherEducation Malaysia and University of Malaya for the financial sup-port under High Impact Research UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/ENG/06.

References

(API), A.P.I., 2011. Alcohols and Ethers, Washington, DC.Abdul Khalil, H., Siti Alwanil, M., Mohd Omar, A., 2006. Chemical composition,

anatomy, lignin distribution and cell wall structure of Malaysian plant wastefibers. Bioresources 17, 220–232.

Aditiya, H.B., 2014. Experimental Investigation of Bioethanol Production fromDurian (Durio zibethinus) Seeds By Fermentation As The New PotentialFeedstock of Second Generation Biofuel Production, Department ofMechanical Engineering. Universiti Tenaga Nasional, p. 82.

Aditiya, H.B., Sing, K.P., Hanif, M., Mahlia, T.M.I., 2015. Effect of acid pretreatment onenzymatic hydrolysis in bioethanol production from rice straw. Int. J. Technol. 6,3–10.

Agriculture, U.S.D.o., 2007. Indonesia and Malaysia Palm Oil Production.Agriculture, U.S.D.o., 2014. Table 11: Palm Oil: World Supply and Distribution, 10

October 2014 ed.Ahmed, A.S., Khan, S., Hamdan, S., Rahman, R., Kalam, A., Masjuki, H.H., Mahlia,

T.M.I., 2010. Biodiesel production from macro algae as a green fuel for dieselengine. J. Energy Environ. 2, 1–5.

Amid, B.T., Mirhosseini, H., 2012. Optimisation of aqueous extraction of gum fromdurian (Durio zibethinus) seed: a potential, low cost source of hydrocolloid. FoodChem. 132, 1258–1268.

Amiri, H., Karimi, K., Zilouei, H., 2014. Organosolv pretreatment of rice straw forefficient acetone, butanol, and ethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 152,450–456.

Amiza, M.A., Roslan, A., 2009. Proximate composition and pasting properties ofdurian (Durio zibethinus) seed flour. Int. J. Postharvest Technol. Innovations 1,367–375.

Association, E.B.I., 2012. Bioethanol; Fuel Properties.Balat, M., 2007. Global bio-fuel processing and production trends. Energy Explor.

Exploit. 25, 195–218.Binod, P., Sindhu, R., Singhania, R., Vikram, S., Devi, L., Nagalakshmi, S., et al., 2010.

Bioethanol production from rice straw: an overview. Bioresour. Technol. 101,4767–4774.

Brown, M.J., 1997. Durio – A Bibliographic Review. International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI).

Center, A.F.D., 2014. Fuel Properties Comparison Results. U.S. Department of Energy.Choonut, A., Saejong, M., Sangkharak, K., 2014. The production of ethanol and

hydrogen from pineapple peel by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Enterobacteraerogenes. In: 2013 International Conference on Alternative Energy inDeveloping Countries and Emerging Economies. Energy Procedia, pp. 242–249.

Commission, E., 2011a. Energy Balance, Crude Oil Products – Consumption. EnergyCommission, Malaysia.

Commission, E., 2011b. Energy Balance, Crude Oil Products – Reserve. EnergyCommission, Malaysia.

Cornelia, M., Siratantri, T., Prawita, R., 2015. The utilization of extract durian (Duriozibethinus L.) seed gum as an emulsifier in vegan mayonnaise. In: The FirstInternational Symposium on Food and Agro-biodiversity (ISFA2014), pp. 1–18.

60 H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61

DECP, M.-D.E.C.P., 2006. Biofuels for the Malaysian transport sector.Demirbas, A., 2005. Bioethanol from cellulosic materials: a renewable motor fuel

from biomass. Energy Source Part A 27, 327–337.Division, S.M., 2013. Map of Paddy Area. Department of Agriculture, Peninsular,

Malaysia.Domínguez-Bocanegra, A.R., Torres-Muñoz, J.A., López, R.A., 2014. Production of

bioethanol from agro-industrial wastes. Fuel.Eijck, J.v., Batidzirai, B., Faaij, A., 2014. Current and future economic performance of

first and second generation biofuels in developing countries. Appl. Energy 135,115–141.

El-Tanboly, E.E., 2001. The b-galactosidase system of a novel plant from durianseeds (Durio zibethinus). I. isolation and partial characterization. Pak. J. Biol. Sci.4, 1531–1534.

El-Zawawy, W.K., Ibrahim, M.M., Abdel-Fattah, Y.R., Soliman, N.A., Mahmoud, M.M.,2011. Acid and enzyme hydrolysis to convert pretreated lignocellulosicmaterials into glucose for ethanol production. Carbohyd. Polym. 84, 865–871.

Emaga, T.H., Robert, C., Ronkart, S.N., Wathelet, B., Paquot, M., 2008. Dietary fibrecomponent and pectin chemical features of peels during ripening in banana andplantain varieties. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 4346–4354.

FAO, 2001. Intergovernmental Group on Bananas and Tropical Fruits. FAO, CostaRica.

FAOSTAT, 2014. Production quantities by country.FAOSTAT, 2014. Top production – pineapple – 2012.Gardendoctor, 2013. Palm.Goh, C.S., Tan, K.T., Lee, K.T., Bhatia, S., 2010. Bio-ethanol from lignocellulose: status,

perspective and challenges in Malaysia. Bioresour. Technol., 13Gulati, M., Kohlmann, K., Ladisch, M.R., Hespell, R., Bothast, R.J., 1996. Assessment of

ethanol production options for corn products. Bioresour. Technol. 1996, 253–264.

Habib, M., Yusoff, F., Phang, S., Kamarudin, M., Mohamad, S., 1998. Chemicalcharacteristics and essential nutrients of agroindustrial effluents in Malaysia.Asian Fish J. 11, 279–286.

Hanum, F., Pohan, N., Rambe, M., Primadony, R., Ulyana, M., 2013. Pengaruh MassaRagi dan Waktu Fermentasi Terhadap Bioethanol dari Biji Durian. Jurnal TeknikKimia USU 2, 49–54.

Hashim, M., 2005. Present Status and Problems in Biomass Utilization for ElectricityGeneration in Malaysia Biomass-Asia Workshop Tokyo, Japan.

Hassan, M., Shirai, Y., 2003. Palm oil biomass utilization in Malaysia for theproduction of bioplastic. <http://www.lsse.kyutech.ac.jp/~asiacore/japanese/log/2007/data/1018/Palm%20Biomass%20Plastics(Ali).pdf>.

Ilori, M., Adebusoye, S., lawal, A., Awotiwon, O., 2007. Production of biogas frombanana and plantain peels. Adv. Environ. Biol. 1, 33–38.

Institute, M., 2012. Fuel properties.Ishola, M.M., Isroi, Taherzadeh, M.J., 2014. Effect of fungal and phosphoric acid

pretreatment on ethanol production from oil palm empty fruit bunches(OPEFB). Bioresour. Technol. 165, 9–12.

Jhonprimen, H.S., Turnip, A., Dahlan, M.H., 2012. Pengaruh Massa Ragi, Jenis Ragidan Waktu Fermentasi pada Bioethanol dari Biji Durian. Jurnal Teknik Kimia 18,43–51.

Jingura, R., Matengaifa, R., 2008. The potential for energy production from cropresidues in Zimbabwe. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 1287–1292.

Jinming, B., Overend, R., 1998. Assessment of Biomass Resource Availability inChina. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing.

Jung, Y.H., Kim, I.J., Han, J.-I., Choi, I.-G., Kim, K.H., 2011. Aqueous ammoniapretreatment of oil palm empty fruit bunches for ethanol production. Bioresour.Technol. 102, 9806–9809.

Kelly-Yong, T.L., Lee, K.T., Mohamed, A.R., Bhatia, S., 2007. Potential of hydrogenfrom oil palm biomass as a source of renewable energy worldwide. EnergyPolicy 35, 5692–5701.

Kennedy, S., Ahamad, F., 2007. Estimating the impact of vehicle modification costson the demand for biofuels in Malaysia. Energy Sustain. Dev. 11.

Khedari, J., Charoenvai, S., Hirunlabh, J., 2003. New insulating particleboards fromdurian peel and coconut coir. Build. Environ. 38, 435–441.

Kim, S., Dale, B., 2014. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted cropsand crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26, 361–375.

Kong, S.-H., Loh, S.-K., Bachmann, R.T., Rahim, S.A., Salimon, J., 2014. Biochar fromoil palm biomass: a review of its potential and challenges. Renew. Sustain.Energy Rev. 39, 729–739.

Konsortium, I.W., 2013. Sewerage Facts – Effluent Standards.Koopmans, A., Koppejan, J., 1997. Agricultural and forest residues—generation,

utilization and availability. Regional Consultation Mod. Appl. Biomass Energy,10.

Kovarik, W., 2008. Ethanol’s first century. In: XVI International Symposium onAlcohol Fuels. Radford University.

Krylova, A.Y., Kozyukov, E.A., Lapidus, A.L., 2008. Ethanol and diesel fuel from plantraw materials: a review. Solid Fuel Chem., 358–364

Kumar, U., Bandyopadhyay, M., 2006. Sorption of cadmium from aqueous solutionusing pretreated rice husk. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 104–109.

Kurniawan, A., Sisnandy, V.O.A., Trilestari, K., Sunarso, J., Indraswati, N., Ismadji, S.,2011. Performance of durian shell waste as high capacity biosorbent for Cr(VI)removal from synthetic wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 37, 940–947.

Laboratory, A.N., 2013. Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use inTransportation (GREET) Model, 1 ed, Chicago, IL.

Lam, M.K., Lee, K.T., 2011. Renewable and sustainable bioenergies production frompalm oil mill effluent (POME): win–win strategies toward better environmentalprotection. Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 124–141.

Lashinky, A., Schwartz, N.D., 2006. How to beat the high cost of gasoline. Fortune.Li, Y., Horsman, M., Wang, B., Wu, N., Lan, C., 2008. Effects of nitrogen sources on cell

growth and lipid accumulation of green alga Neochloris leoabundans. Appl.Microbiol. Biotechnol. 81, 629–636.

Loh, S., Subramaniam, V., Ngatiman, M., 2012. Oil palm biomass energy resourcedata. In: Board, M.P.O. (Ed.), Kuala Lumpur, pp. 1–24, ISBN: 978-967-961-185-4.

Maiorella, B., 1983. Ethanol industrial chemicals. Biochem. Fuels 86.Malaysia, D.o.A., 2013. Table 8.1: Principal Statistics of Paddy and Rice by All

Seasons, 1980 – 2012, Malaysia. Department of Agriculture Malaysia, Malaysia.Malaysia, D.o.A.P., 2014. Paddy Statistics of Malaysia 2013. Department of

Agriculture Peninsular Malaysia, Malaysia.Manshor, M.R., Anuar, H., Nur Aimi, M.N., Ahmad Fitrie, M.I., Wan Nazri, W.B.,

Sapuan, S.M., El-Shekeil, Y.A., Wahit, M.U., 2014. Mechanical, thermal andmorphological properties of durian skin fibre reinforced PLA biocomposites.Mater. Des. 59, 279–286.

Medina, J.D.L.C., García, H.S., 2005. Pineapple: post-harvest Operations. In: Mejía, D.(Ed.), Instituto Tecnologico de Veracruz.

Millati, R., Wikandari, R., Trihandayani, E.T., Cahyanto, M.N., Taherzadeh, M.J.,Niklasson, C., 2011. Ethanol from Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch via Dilute-AcidHydrolysis and Fermentation by Mucor indicus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Agric. J. 6, 54–59.

Minowa, T., Kondo, T., Sudirjo, S.T., 1998. Thermochemical liquefaction ofindonesian biomass residues. Biomass Bioenergy 14, 517–524.

MPIB, 2012. Perangkaan Industri Nanas Malaysia. Malaysia Pineapple IndustryBoard, Malaysia.

MPIB, 2013. Pelan Strategik LPNM. Malaysia Pineapple Industry Board, Malaysia.MPIB, 2014. Malaysia.MPOB, 2010. Foreword from the Chairman of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board.MPOB, 2010. Overview of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry 2010 Economics &

Industry Development Division. Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Malaysia.MPOB, 2012. Overview of the Malaysian oil palm industry 2012. Economics &

Industry Development Division, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Malaysia.MPOB, 2014. Overview of the Malaysian oil palm industry 2014. Economics &

Industry Development Division, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Malaysia.MPOC, 2008. World’s oil production in 2007.News, B., 2006. Banana biofuels. URL <http://www.mongabay.com/legacy/news/

bioenergy/2006/09/banana-biofuels.html>.Nigam, J.N., 1999. Continuous ethanol production from pineapple cannery waste. J.

Biotechnol. 72, 197–202.Nooten, H.V., 1863. Durio zibethinus. URL <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Durio_Zibethinus_Van_Nooten.jpg>.O-Thong, S., Boe, K., Angelidaki, I., 2012. Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of oil

palm empty fruit bunches with palm oil mill effluent for efficient biogasproduction. Appl. Energy 93, 648–654.

Oberoi, H.S., Sandhu, S.K., Vadlani, P.V., 2011a. Statistical optimization of hydrolysisprocess for banana peels using cellulolytic and pectinolytic enzymes. FoodBioprod. Process 90, 257–265.

Oberoi, H.S., Vadlani, P.V., Saida, L., Bansal, S., Hughes, J.D., 2011b. Ethanolproduction from banana peels using statistically optimized simultaneoussaccharification and fermentation process. Waste Manage. 31, 1576–1584.

Ofori-Boateng, C., Lee, K.T., 2013. Ultrasonic-assisted simultaneous saccharificationand fermentation of pretreated oil palm fronds for sustainable bioethanolproduction. Fuel 119, 285–291.

Oh, T., Pang, S., Chua, S., 2010. Energy policy and alternative in Malaysia: issues andchallenger for sustainable growth. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 1241–1252.

Okamoto, K., Nitta, Y., Maekawa, N., Yanase, H., 2011. Direct ethanol productionfrom starch, wheat bran and rice straw by the white rot fungus Trametes hirsuta.Enzyme Microb. Technol. 48, 273–277.

Ong, H.C., Masjuki, H.H., Mahlia, T.M.I., Silitonga, A.S., Chong, W.T., Leong, K.Y.,2014a. Optimization of biodiesel production and engine performance from highfree fatty acid Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine. Energy Convers.Manage. 81, 30–40.

Ong, H.C., Masjuki, H.H., Mahlia, T.M.I., Silitonga, A.S., Chong, W.T., Yusaf, T., 2014b.Engine performance and emissions using Jatropha curcas, Ceiba pentandra andCalophyllum inophyllum biodiesel in a CI diesel engine. Energy 69,427–445.

Ong, H.C., Silitonga, A.S., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Chong, W.T., 2014c.Investigation of biodiesel production from Cerbera Manghas biofuel sources.Energy Procedia 61, 436–439.

Ong, H.C., Silitonga, A.S., Masjuki, H.H., Mahlia, T.M.I., Chong, W.T., Boosroh, M.H.,2013. Production and comparative fuel properties of biodiesel from non-edibleoils: Jatropha curcas, Sterculia foetida and Ceiba pentandra. Energy Convers.Manage. 73, 245–255.

Osman, H., Zakaria, M.H., 2012. Effects of durian seed flour on processing torque,tensile, thermal and biodegradation properties of polypropylene and highdensity polyethylene composites. Polym.-Plast. Technol. 51, 243–250.

Park, J.M., Oh, B.-R., Seo, J.-W., Hong, W.-K., Yu, A., Sohn, J.-H., Kim, C.H., 2013.Efficient production of ethanol from empty palm fruit bunch fibers by fed-batchsimultaneous saccharification and fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 170, 1807–1814.

Pimpa, W., Pimpa, C., Junsangsree, P., 2012. Development of biodegradable filmsbased on durian seed starch. Adv. Mater. Res. 506, 311–314.

Plantation, S.D., 2014. Palm oil facts & figures.Poh, K., Kong, H., 2002. Renewable energy in Malaysia: a policy analysis. Energy

Sustain. Dev. 6.

H.B. Aditiya et al. / Waste Management 47 (2016) 46–61 61

Prasertsan, S., Prasertsan, P., 1996. Biomass residues from palm oil mills inThailand: an overview on quantity and potential usage. Biomass Bioenergy 11,387–395.

Purohit, P., 2009. Economic potential of biomass gasification projects under cleandevelopment mechanism in India. J. Cleaner Prod. 17, 181–193.

Putri, A.I., 2011. Produksi Bioethanol oleh Saccharomyces cerevisiae dari Biji Durian(Durio zibethinus Murr.) dengan Variasi Jenis Jamur dan Kadar Pati. Faculty ofBiotechnology, Programme of Biology. Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta,Yogyakarta.

Rakopoulos, D.C., Rakopoulos, C.D., Papagiannakis, R.G., Kyritsis, D.C., 2011.Combustion heat release analysis of ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends inheavy-duty DI diesel engine. Fuel 90, 1855–1867.

Reddy, Y.A.K., Srijana, M., Reddy, D.M., Reddy, G., 2010. Coculture fermentation ofbanana agro-waste to ethanol by cellulolytic thermophilic Clostridiumthermocellum CT2. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 9, 1926–1934.

Resources, P., 2007. Palm oil.Rodrigues, R.R.d.A., 2000. USGA: EM 1927, O Primeiro Grande Empreendimento

Brasileiro Em Álcool Combustível.Roslan, A.M., Yee, P.L., Shah, U.K.M., Aziz, S.A., Hassan, M.A., 2011. Production of

bioethanol from rice straw using cellulase by local Aspergillus sp. Int. J. Agric.Res. 6, 188–193.

Ruangviriyachai, C., Niwaswong, C., Kosaikanon, N., Chanthai, S., Chaimart, P., 2010.Pineapple peel waste for bioethanol production. J. Biotechnol.

Saga, K., Imou, K., Yokoyama, S., Minowa, T., 2010. Net energy analysis of bioethanolproduction system from high-yield rice plant in Japan. Appl. Energy 87, 361–375.

Saha, B.C., Cotta, M.A., 2008. Lime pretreatment, enzymatic saccharification andfermentation of rice hulls to ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 971–977.

Shafie, S.M., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Andriyana, A., 2011. Current energy usageand sustainable energy in Malaysia: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,4370–4377.

Shuit, S.H., Tan, K.T., Lee, K.T., Kamaruddin, A.H., 2009. Oil palm biomass as asustainable energy source: a Malaysian case study. Energy 34, 1225–1235.

Silitonga, A.S., Atabani, A.E., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Badruddin, I.A., Mekhilef,S., 2011. A review on prospect of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel in Indonesia.Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 3733–3756.

Silitonga, A.S., Masjuki, H.H., Mahlia, T.M.I., Ong, H.C., Atabani, A.E., Chong,W.T., 2013a. A global comparative review of biodiesel production fromJatropha curcas using different homogeneous acid and alkaline catalysts:study of physical and chemical properties. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24,514–533.

Silitonga, A.S., Masjuki, H.H., Mahlia, T.M.I., Ong, H.C., Chong, W.T., Boosroh, M.H.,2013b. Overview properties of biodiesel diesel blends from edible and non-edible feedstock. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 346–360.

Silitonga, A.S., Ong, H.C., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Chong, W.T., 2013c.Characterization and production of Ceiba pentandra biodiesel and its blends.Fuel 108, 855–858.

Silitonga, A.S., Ong, H.C., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Chong, W.T., 2014. Biodieselconversion from high FFA crude Jatropha curcas, Calophyllum inophyllum andCeiba pentandra oil. Energy Procedia 61, 480–483.

Singh, A., Bajar, S., Bishnoi, N.R., 2014. Enzymatic hydrolysis of microwave alkalipretreated rice husk for ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae,Scheffersomyces stipitis and their co-culture. Fuel 116, 699–702.

Srianta, I., Hendrawan, B., Kusumawati, N., Blanc, P.J., 2012. Study on durian seed asa new substrate for angkak production. Int. Food Res. J. 19, 941–945.

Srimachai, T., Thonglimp, V., O-Thong, S., 2014. Ethanol and methane productionfrom oil palm frond by two stage SSF. In: 2013 International Conference onAlternative Energy in Developing Countries and Emerging Economies.

Statistics, D.o., 2011. Supply and Utilization Accounts Selected AgriculturalCommodities: Malaysia 2006–2010. Department of Statistics Malaysia,Malaysia.

Statistics, D.o., 2014. Supply and Utilization Accounts Selected AgriculturalCommodities: Malaysia 2009–2013. Department of Statistics Malaysia,Malaysia.

Tabatabaee Amid, B., Mirhosseini, H., 2014. Stabilization of water in oil in water (W/O/W) emulsion using whey protein isolate-conjugated durian seed gum:enhancement of interfacial activity through conjugation process. ColloidsSurf., B 113, 107–114.

Tanaka, K., Hilary, Z.D., Ishizaki, A., 1999. Investigation of the utility of pineapplejuice and pineapple waste material as low-cost substrate for ethanolfermentation by Zymomonas mobilis. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 87, 642–646.

Teh, S.S., Ahmad, R., Abdullah, W.N.W., Liong, M.T., 2009. Evaluation of agrowastesas immobilizers for probiotics in soy milk. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 10187–10198.

Tripathi, A., Iyer, P., Kandpal, T., Singh, K., 1998. Assessment of availability and costsof some agricultural residues used as feedstocks for biomass gasification andbriquetting in India. Energy Convers. Manage. 39, 1611–1618.

UNDP, 2006. Achieving industrial energy efficiency in Malaysia.UNEP, 2009. Converting waste agricultural biomass into energy source.Unhasirikul, M., Naranong, N., Narkrugsa, W., 2012. Reducing sugar production from

durian peel by hydrochloric acid hydrolysis. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 6,384–389.

Valentina, 2013. How to peel and cut a pineapple.Worasuwannarak, N., Sonobe, T., Tanthapanichakoon, W., 2007. Pyrolysis behaviors

of rice straw, rice husk, and corncob by TG–MS technique. J. Anal. Appl.Pyrolysis 78, 265–271.

Yusoff, S., 2006. Renewable energy from palm oil – innovation on effectiveutilization of waste. J. Clean Prod. 14, 87–93.