Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Biorefineries and the food, energy, water nexus
towards a whole systems approach to design and
planning
Elias Martinez-Hernandez1,2 and Sheila Samsatli1
Concerns over securing basic resources to an increasing world
population have stressed the importance of critical interactions
between the food, energy and water supply systems, as framed
by the food-energy-water nexus concept. Current biorefineries
producing first generation biofuels from food crops have
impacted nexus resources, most notoriously land and food but
also water and fossil energy resources required during cultivation
and processing. Solutions to the nexus challenges of biorefineries
require the search for alternative feedstocks and the application
of methods that capture opportunities for synergistic interactions
with the nexus. At the process level, more efficient water and
energy use and food production could be possible if methods for
extensive biomass fractionation, process integration and
optimisation are developed. There is also a great opportunity to
include the interactions between biomass supply and the nexus
sectors in value chain optimisation to find strategic integrations
that improve productivity and reduce losses and environmental
impacts. By incorporating opportunities into a whole systems
approach for design and planning, biorefineries will be able to
balance nexus resource trade-offs, deliver their potential for full
exploitation of biomass as the only source of renewable carbon
and materials, and translate nexus issues into social welfare and
sustainable development.
Addresses
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2
7AY, UK
2
Biomass Conversion Department, Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo,
Lazaro Cardenas 152, Mexico City, 07730, Mexico
Corresponding author: Martinez-Hernandez, Elias
(eliasiq2008@gmail.com)
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
This review comes from a themed issue on Process systems
engineering
Edited by Mahmoud El-Halwagi, Ka Ming Ng and Dale Keairns
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2017.08.003
2211-3398/# 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Initially viewed as an environmentally friendly alterna-
tive to fossil fuels and a way to increase energy security,
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
biofuels have undergone extensive scrutiny regarding
their sustainability. Diversion of areas of land that are
used to produce food to the production of biofuels has
caused food price increases and a continuing food vs fuel
debate [1]. Current biofuel production systems still rely
on fossil-based resources for cultivation and processing. In
addition, they also consume large amounts of water,
especially during the cultivation stage, which may worsen
water stress in some regions [2]. These realities are
evidenced by the impact and trade-offs of the promotion
of large scale biofuel production [3] and the bioeconomy
on the delicate interactions between food, energy and
water systems [4]. The Food-Energy-Water (FEW) nexus
concept was presented at the 2011 Bonn Conference as an
approach to realise UN Sustainable Development Goals
by reducing trade-offs and encouraging integration across
sectors for sustainable use of resources [5]. The sustain-
ability issues with biofuels are partly due to their produc-
tion in linear, single output process systems, which make
inefficient use of the feedstock, energy and water inputs.
A nexus approach is needed for the development of
solutions through integrative process systems such as
biorefineries and their supply chains.
In the most advanced sense, a biorefinery is a facility for
the sustainable conversion of biomass through integrated,
efficient and flexible processing into multiple products
including chemicals, food, animal feed and energy pro-
ducts [6]. Biorefineries can be classified according to the
type of feedstock (e.g. algal biorefineries, organic waste
biorefineries, lignocellulosic biorefineries), the platform
technology (biochemical, thermochemical) or the degree
of complexity (Type I or single feedstock-single product,
Type II or single-feedstock-multiple product, and Type
III or multiple feedstock and multiple product). A bior-
efinery system can belong to one or more of these various
classifications, thus in this review the biorefinery type is
not distinguished as the focus is on the interactions of any
biorefinery with the FEW nexus systems. Advanced
biorefineries (Types II and III, as defined before) have
promising prospects to address nexus issues by providing
food, energy and clean water in a sustainable way while
preserving the environment and ecosystems [7]. The
concept was developed by analogy to the complex but
highly efficient crude oil refineries and the application of
process engineering principles in their designs, such as
feedstock fractionation for multiple value-added produc-
tions and process integration. The present paper reviews
how biorefineries can be a potential solution to the FEW
www.sciencedirect.com
 Biorefineries and the food, energy, water nexus Martinez-Hernandez and Samsatli 17
nexus issues if extensive biomass fractionation, process
integration and optimisation are elegantly developed
through synergistic interactions with the nexus compo-
nents. The nexus challenges of current biorefinery devel-
opments are reviewed in Overview of food-energy-water
nexus interactions of biorefineries section. This is fol-
lowed by a review of opportunities for process systems
engineering (PSE) tools at the biorefinery process level
and at the entire biomass value chain for efficient utilisa-
tion of FEW resources. The last section presents a
prospective for a whole systems approach for biorefinery
design and planning.
Overview of food-energy-water nexus
interactions of biorefineries
Biorefineries producing first generation biofuels are now
well established and can be used as a reference for an
initial analysis of FEW nexus interactions. Biofuels pro-
vide only 4% of global transportation fuels, yet 3% of
global water consumption is driven by their production
and they use land and crops that could feed 30% of the
population suffering food poverty [8]. 510% of culti-
vated land needs to be diverted to produce biorefinery
feedstock to meet Chinas biofuel target by 2020, con-
suming the equivalent of Yellow Rivers annual water
discharge [9]. These realities reflect the importance of
systematically analysing the nexus interactions of bior-
efineries to avoid negative impacts and balance resource
trade-offs.
Figure 1
Energy
Increased water
use for energy
Energy and
biofuel products
Polluted water
from energy
production
Water for process
and utilities
Biorefinery
Water effluent,
treated water
Water
Water polluted by
fertiliser leaching
Food, energy and water nexus interactions of current biorefineries which mainly use food crops or first generation feedstocks.
www.sciencedirect.com
The FEW nexus of biorefineries manifest itself in differ-
ent ways depending on the biomass, location and process
technology, however, all biorefineries will impact water,
energy resources and food supply. Figure 1 shows an
overview of interactions for current biorefineries which
mainly use food crops such as sugarcane, corn and wheat
for biofuels. The delicate energy-food interactions have
been widely debated, as mentioned earlier, but it should
be noted that current biorefineries contribute indirectly to
the production of food by recovering animal feed [10].
Interactions with the energy system come from the use
natural gas and electricity to run biorefining processes,
and this undermines the life cycle energy and carbon
emissions balance [11]. This implies an increase in de-
mand for fossil resources, which bioenergy and biofuels
seek to replace, an irony that must be avoided or at least
minimised. Furthermore, inefficient energy use in bior-
efineries could lead to increased water use for cooling
duties, thus creating an energy-water nexus issue.
Water use during crop cultivation may have serious
implications on water quality, due to leaching of fertilisers
and pesticides into water bodies, and also on water
availability for other purposes. For example, to produce
1 L of ethanol, 5004000 L of water are required during
biomass cultivation while the processing water require-
ments in a typical ethanol plant are 210 L, which can
cause a drink or drive issue [12]. The increased biofuel
production has probably already affected water quality
because of the large amount of fertilisers used to grow
corn in the US [13] and sugarcane in Brazil [14]. Although
Food/land diverted
for energy
Fossil energy
for process
Energy use for
cultivation
Food/feed
products
Feedstock
Food
Water for food or
energy crops
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
18 Process systems engineering
water use for the biorefinery conversion process and
utilities can be small compared to its use in the cultivation
stage, process water can also add pressure in water
stressed locations. A biorefinery annually producing
100 million gallons of bioethanol in the US would use
the equivalent of the water needed by 5000 people [13].
Discharge of biorefinery effluents can also affect water
quality, which can further reduce freshwater suitable for
human consumption. Therefore, growing biofuel crops and
installing biorefineries should aim to balance local water
constraints, climate and crop requirements. A clear distinc-
tion should be made between using dedicated crops and
by-products from other activities as feedstocks for biore-
fining. The distinction affects the allocation of water
footprint, and thus, the implications on the nexus. A
dedicated crop will have a larger water footprint as all of
the water for cultivation is attributable to the system. If the
feedstock is a crop residue, then the only a fraction of that
water is attributable, but this also depends on how the
water footprint is allocated to the residues [15]. The water
footprint of bioenergy and biofuels has been assessed in
more detail for a variety of dedicated crops elsewhere [16].
From a nexus perspective, the panorama does not look
optimistic for current biorefineries. However, the poten-
tial of second and third generation feedstocks can help to
resolve FEW resource trade-offs through new technolo-
gies and their wise integration in biorefineries. By 2050,
75% of biofuel production will come from lignocellulosic
biorefineries [17], but their large scale deployment will
imply significant carbon, land, energy and water foot-
prints that need to be quantified and minimised. Togeth-
er with the prospects of new feedstocks and biorefining
technologies, water and energy integration and fraction-
ation to recover food products are the pathways to take to
address the FEW nexus issues of biorefineries, as
reviewed in the following sections.
FEW nexus opportunities at the biorefinery
process level
Current biorefineries should evolve into more integrated
facilities considering on-site energy generation from resi-
dues [18], whole crop utilisation [19] and recovery of feed
and food ingredients [20], thus solving some of the nexus
challenges at the process level. Biorefineries can further
contribute to this by using lignocellulosic crops and resi-
dues, and recovering protein and other food products. The
need for separating biomass fractions for efficient conver-
sion into multiple products creates enough complexity and
scope for mass and energy integration [20]. Furthermore,
biorefineries can be a model for closing resource loops [21]
and circular economy [22,23] for efficient management of
waste in synergy with food, energy and water systems.
Several PSE efforts to address nexus challenges by
exploiting integrative opportunities in biorefineries have
been presented in the literature. A new targeting and
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
design method has been proposed for the integration of
water, achieving up to 85.5% water savings in a lignocel-
lulosic biorefinery [24]. Another approach combines pro-
cess optimisation and graph-based allocation maps for the
integrated treatment of biorefinery effluents [25]. Anoth-
er contribution presents the optimisation of locating
multiple biorefineries while observing local environmen-
tal constraints on water availability [26]. Sequential inte-
gration of process technologies, energy and water has
been applied to a biorefinery using whole corn [27].
Results showed that there are conditions where it is best
to use stover for ethanol production, via the thermochem-
ical route, and the grain for food; thus effectively addres-
sing the FEW nexus trade-offs. Technologies and
methods for optimal integration of biomass processing,
energy and water in biorefineries have been presented in
[28]. The water-energy nexus will be highly dependent
on the process technology route and the level of energy
integration. The thermochemical routes may provide
better scope due to the high temperatures, which also
reduce freshwater use for cooling. FischerTropsch has
shown the best compromise [29], but targets for process
design and water-energy nexus need to be identified [30].
Life cycle approaches have also been developed for
successive optimisation of the water-energy nexus for
various biofuel production pathways [31]. The application
of life cycle studies is also important to identify trade-offs
between economic, environmental and social objectives
of bioenergy and biorefinery systems, which can be re-
solved using multi-objective optimisation [3234]. Re-
source trade-offs in the nexus and ecosystems can also be
identified using ecologically based LCA [35]. A more
comprehensive review of the potential for life cycle
assessment, pinch analysis and mathematical program-
ming to resolve nexus issues has been presented else-
where [36]. A comprehensive review of water and
energy integration methods is presented in [37]. Howev-
er, to date only a few studies consider the three compo-
nents of the FEW nexus in an optimisation framework
[38]. Therefore, there is a need to develop tools that can
find innovative solutions by simultaneously addressing
nexus issues and resource trade-offs, and considering
nexus integration opportunities.
Extensive research exists on the water-energy nexus of
biorefineries, with little attention to the food element.
Recent developments on algae cultivation as a biorefinery
feedstock has encouraging prospects to fully address
FEW nexus issues. Algal biorefineries can provide
enough biofuel and protein to fully displace fossil trans-
portation fuels and meet up to 24% of the plant protein
demands by 2054 [39]. Recent biotechnological advance-
ments will also enable the fractionation of non-food
lignocellulosic biomass into sugars, cellulose, hemicellu-
lose, lignin and proteins and their further conversion into
food products. For example, non-food cellulose can be
www.sciencedirect.com
 Biorefineries and the food, energy, water nexus Martinez-Hernandez and Samsatli 19
converted into starch and cultured meat production can
be an alternative to livestock grazing [40]. Food produc-
tion in biorefineries will provide a positive impact on the
food side of the FEW nexus, but acceptance, safety,
ethics and health issues would need be resolved first.
Another opportunity is the processing of biorefinery resi-
dues and wastewater [21,41]. Organic streams can be
used to produce energy and chemicals through biochem-
ical technologies such as anaerobic digestion (AD)
[42,43]. Integrated waste biorefineries can also treat
wastewater for recycling, while also contributing to food
production by recovering nutrients [43,44]. Digestate
valorisation can further replace freshwater, nutrients
and fossil energy through algae cultivation and bioenergy
production [45]. Biorefineries can therefore also be a
crucial link to close the nutrient cycle, which is also
important for a product life cycle, allowing recovery of
fertiliser for food and biorefinery feedstock production
and avoiding nitrogen leaching to water bodies [46].
Furthermore, the use and fractionation of biorefinery
residues can lead to food production if novel technologies
for the extraction of proteins, sugars and lignin such as
hydrothermal treatment are developed [47].
As the nexus interactions can become critical at the
biomass production stage, there is also a search for new
biorefinery feedstocks such as O. ficus-indica and E.
tirucalli. These plants grow under water-limited condi-
tions and could provide biomass to produce enough
biogas to replace natural gas and fertiliser for food pro-
duction by using between 4 and 15% of global semi-arid
land [48]. Synergistic biorefinery interactions with wider
food, energy and water systems as well as techno-ecologi-
cal synergies that favour the preservation of ecosystem
services should also be sought [49,50]. The integration of
algal biorefineries with other industries such as livestock,
lignocellulosic and aquaculture is another opportunity
[51], which will require extensive process systems engi-
neering. Another example is the symbiotic integration of
solar energy and CO2 valorisation in biorefineries [52].
Other opportunities at the value chain level are reviewed
in the following section.
FEW nexus opportunities at the biomass value
chain level
Biomass supply chains have received a lot of attention
over the last 10 years as they are such an important issue
for biorefineries because of the large variety of feedstocks
that can be converted into many different types of prod-
uct (energy services, chemicals and commodities) via a
large number of pathways. The feedstocks, intermediates
and products need to be transported from their sources to
where they are needed and their inventory managed in
order to ensure demands can be met at all times despite
fluctuations in raw material availability and final-product
demands. An additional complexity with biomass supply
www.sciencedirect.com
chains is that the raw materials are not limited to specific
locations (as would be the case for natural gas, for exam-
ple), and determining where to grow each type of biomass
should be based on land and climate suitability. It is a very
complex problem to find the best combination of many
highly interdependent decisions, such as determining
what biomass to grow, where and when, what types of
biorefinery to invest in and where they should be located.
All of these decisions affect further decisions about trans-
port and storage of resources. The objective is to create
more value at each stage of the supply chain and the value
may be measured by more than simple economic metrics
and may also include environmental and social indicators,
such as greenhouse gas emissions and job creation.
The following review papers give a good overview
of literature in the area of biomass supply chains:
[5355,56]. Mafakheri and Nasiri [53] consider the
challenges and issues for biomass supply chain manage-
ment. Mitchell [54] lists many of the biosystem models
that were developed before 2000, describing how some of
them have been developed. Meyer et al. [54] categorised
biomass supply chain models published between
1997 and 2012 according to the type of optimisation
problem (e.g. heuristics or mathematical programming,
linear, non-linear, mixed integer), the decisions consid-
ered (e.g. planning or operation) and the type of objective
function (e.g. economic or multi-objective). The majority
were found to be mathematical programming models with
a purely economic objective function. Yue et al. [56] also
categorised the literature according to type of optimisa-
tion problem being solved (supply chain design or opera-
tion, single-objective or multi-objective) and also by
application area, such as the type of feedstock and what
the products of the supply chain are. The requirements of
a tool for total chain integration of biorefineries have also
been provided in [57].
The biomass supply chain problem is often formulated as
an optimisation problem, typically using Mixed Integer
Programming (MIP). The spatial aspect of the problem is
usually represented by defining a number of nodes or
regions and binary variables then represent the existence
of a particular type of biorefinery at each node. Continu-
ous variables represent the operation of the network, such
as processing rates of the biorefineries, rates of transport
of resources, inventory levels, etc. A comprehensive
biomass value chain model has been developed by
[58,59], which is configured for the UK by using 157
50 km  50 km cells. It is a multi-vector model that
includes a very large number of pathways from biomass
to products. It determines what biomass (including vari-
ous arable crops, energy crops, forestry and waste
resources) to grow/utilise, where and when, and what
are the best products to produce. It simultaneously con-
siders land allocation (accounting for spatial and temporal
variations in biomass yields), transport and storage of
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
20 Process systems engineering
resources, imports, staged investments and retirements of
biorefineries/power plants, afforestation and carbon cap-
ture and storage.
The different stages of a biomass supply chain are intri-
cately linked with the nexus. For example, the water
required for cultivation, processing and conversion of
biomass affect agriculture, land use and food production.
Conversely, food production competes with bioenergy for
land and water. Furthermore, the transport and storage of
biomass feedstocks and distribution of products and
services require energy and generate emissions. Intensive
and poorly planned deployment of bioenergy can affect
detrimentally the ecosystem: deforestation, loss of biodi-
versity and leaching of nutrients and pesticides to bodies
of water, to name a few. However, there are also potential
synergies that can be exploited. For instance, food crop
residues can be used for bioenergy but ensuring that
sufficient residue is left on the field to replenish nutrients.
Effective planning can lead to better management of
forestry resources, improved agricultural practices, water
efficiency and sustainable fertiliser use. Along the various
stages of the supply chain, strategic integration with the
food, water and energy sectors can improve productivity
and reduce losses and environmental impacts. There is
therefore a great opportunity to include the interactions
between biomass supply chains and the FEW nexus in
order to develop biorefineries that can transform rural
economies, improve and maintain social welfare, enhance
energy security and contribute to economic, environmen-
tal and social objectives.
Towards a whole systems approach to
biorefineries and the FEW nexus
Despite the challenging nexus issues inherent to biore-
fineries, they have the potential to evolve as process
systems with enough complexity to balance nexus re-
source trade-offs through the application of process inte-
gration and optimisation at process and value chain levels.
These also represent timely opportunities to develop
whole systems methods that transform nexus challenges
into integrative opportunities. Such a whole systems
approach should embrace the FEW nexus as a framework
to enhance sustainability of biomass utilisation through
the following principles:
1. Extensive fractionation to utilise all biomass compo-
nents and extract food components already in feedstock
2. Energy and water integration at process, regional and
value chain levels
3. Residual waste and wastewater processing with recov-
ery of nutrients to be returned for food and biomass
feedstock cultivation and water for reuse and recycle
4. Mix and match local ecosystems, environmental and
climate conditions to crop resource requirements and
biorefining technologies
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
5. Synergistic integration with FEW nexus components
along biomass value chains.
Biorefinery planning should also aim to tackle intercon-
nected problems present in FEW systems by developing
solutions that align with existing regulations and policies
[21]. Key issues associated with biorefineries and the
FEW nexus along the whole supply chain should also
be considered [60].
Conclusions
Sustainability issues of biorefineries using first generation
feedstock remarked the importance of interaction with
other systems such as food and water production. With a
nexus approach advanced biorefineries processing a vari-
ety of non-food crops and combining established and
novel technologies have the potential to shift those neg-
ative impacts on the FEW nexus into synergistic integra-
tions. In this review several opportunities for positive
FEW interactions of biorefineries have been discussed
and can be highlighted as: firstly, production of food
ingredients by extraction from feedstock or converting
biomass fractions into food ingredients; secondly, use of
non-food and water efficient crops; thirdly, processing of
crop residues and waste feedstocks to recover energy and
other products while recovering clean water and nutrients
for food production; and finally, integrating biorefineries
with other renewable energy systems and other agricul-
tural and food production systems to recover resources
from waste streams to recycle nutrients and water and
recover energy.
The interactions highlighted could be possible by one
combination or another of feedstock-technology-product.
In exploring such opportunities for synergistic interac-
tions, a whole systems approach would support the de-
velopment of advanced biorefineries and resilient value
chains. If timely developed and applied during design
and planning stages, biorefineries will not only allow
balancing of nexus trade-offs, but deliver their promising
potential for the sustainable development of our society.
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Newton Fund and the EPSRC/
RCUK for financial support through the Biomass Value Chains and the
Food-Energy-Water Nexus Project (Grant No. EP/P018165/1).
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Tenenbaum DJ: Food vs. fuel diversion of crops could cause
more hunger. Environ Health Perspect 2008, 116:254-257 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.116-a254.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Biorefineries and the food, energy, water nexus Martinez-Hernandez and Samsatli 21
2. Gheewala SH, Berndes G, Jewitt G: The bioenergy and water
nexus. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2011, 5:353-360 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.295.
3. Rasul G, Sharma B: The nexus approach to water-energy-food
security: an option for adaptation to climate change. Clim
Policy 2016, 16:682-702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2015.1029865.
4. Rosegrant MW, Ringler C, Zhu T, Tokgoz S, Bhandary P: Water
and food in the bioeconomy: challenges and opportunities for
development. Agric Econ (U K) 2013, 44:139-150 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12058.
5. Hoff H: Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the
Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security
Nexus. . Stockholm 2011.
6. Sadhukhan J, Ng KS, Martinez Hernandez E: Biorefineries and
Chemical Processes: Design, Integration and Sustainability
Analysis. edn 1. John Wiley & Sons; 2014 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/9781118698129.
7. Zhang Y: Next generation biorefineries will solve the food,
 biofuels, and environmental trilemma in the energy-food-
water nexus. Energy Sci Eng 2013, 1:27-41 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/ese3.2 This paper highlights the potential for biorefineries
to address nexus issues..
8. Rulli MC, Bellomi D, Cazzoli A, De Carolis G, DOdorico P: The
 water-land-food nexus of first-generation biofuels. Sci Rep
2016, 6:22521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep22521 This paper
reviews and estimates the current global impacts of biofuels on the
nexus..
9. Yang H, Zhou Y, Liu J: Land and water requirements of biofuel
and implications for food supply and the environment in China.
Energy Policy 2009, 37:1876-1885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2009.01.035.
10. Dale BE, Bals BD, Kim S, Eranki P: Biofuels done right: land
efficient animal feeds enable large environmental and energy
benefits. Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44:8385-8389 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101864b.
11. Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B,
Woess-Gallasch S: Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of
biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and
recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 2009, 53:434-447
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.03.013.
12. Dominguez-Faus R, Powers SE, Burken JG, Alvarez PJ: The water
footprint of biofuels: a drink or drive issue? Environ Sci Technol
2009, 43:3005-3010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es802162x.
13. States U, Bush P: Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the
United States. 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/12039.
14. Guarenghi MM, Walter A: Assessing potential impacts of
sugarcane production on water resources: a case study in
Brazil. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2016, 10:699-709 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1680.
15. Mathioudakis V, Gerbens-Leenes PW, Van der Meer TH,
Hoekstra AY: The water footprint of second-generation
bioenergy: a comparison of biomass feedstocks and
conversion techniques. J Clean Prod 2017, 148:571-582 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.032.
16. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer T: The water
footprint of energy from biomass: a quantitative assessment
and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in
energy supply. Ecol Econ 2009, 68:1052-1060 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.013.
17. Hammond GP, Li B: Environmental and resource burdens
 associated with world biofuel production out to 2050: footprint
components from carbon emissions and land use to
waste arisings and water consumption. GCB Bioenergy 2016,
8:894-908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12300.
This paper makes projections of lignocellulosic biorefineries and their
contribution to biofuels and some nexus impacts.
18. Martinez-Hernandez E, Ibrahim MH, Leach M, Sinclair P,
Campbell GM, Sadhukhan J: Environmental sustainability
analysis of UK whole-wheat bioethanol and CHP systems.
www.sciencedirect.com
Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 50:52-64 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2013.01.001.
19. Martinez-Hernandez E, Martinez-Herrera J, Campbell GM,
Sadhukhan J: Process integration, energy and GHG emission
analyses of Jatropha-based biorefinery systems. Biomass
Convers Biorefin 2013, 4:105-124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13399-013-0105-3.
20. Martinez-Hernandez E, Sadhukhan J, Campbell GM: Integration
of bioethanol as an in-process material in biorefineries using
mass pinch analysis. Appl Energy 2013, 104:517-526 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.054.
21. Davis SC, Kauneckis D, Kruse NA, Miller KE, Zimmer M,
Dabelko GD: Closing the loop: integrative systems
management of waste in food, energy, and water systems.
J Environ Stud Sci 2016, 6:11-24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13412-016-0370-0.
22. Satchatippavarn S, Martinez-Hernandez E, Leung Pah Hang MY,
Leach M, Yang A: Urban biorefinery for waste processing.
Chem Eng Res Des 2016, 107:81-90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cherd.2015.09.022.
23. Sadhukhan J, Ng KS, Martinez-Hernandez E: Novel integrated
mechanical biological chemical treatment (MBCT) systems for
the production of levulinic acid from fraction of municipal solid
waste: a comprehensive techno-economic analysis. Bioresour
Technol 2016, 215:131-143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2016.04.030.
24. Nikolakopoulos A, Kokossis A: A problem decomposition
approach for developing total water networks in
lignocellulosic biorefineries. Process Saf Environ Prot 2016:1-21
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.12.007.
25. Mountraki A, Tsakalova M, Panteli A, Papoutsi AI, Kokossis AC:
Integrated waste management in multiproduct biorefineries:
systems optimization and analysis of a real-life industrial
plant. Ind Eng Chem Res 2016, 55:3478-3492 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03431.
26. L_opez-Daz DC, Lira-Barragan LF, Rubio-Castro E, Ponce-
Ortega JM, El-Halwagi MM: Optimal location of biorefineries
considering sustainable integration with the environment.
Renew Energy 2017, 100:65-77 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2016.05.028.
27. Cucek L, Martn M, Grossmann IE, Kravanja Z: Energy, water and
 process technologies integration for the simultaneous
production of ethanol and food from the entire corn plant.
Comput Chem Eng 2011, 35:1547-1557 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.02.007.
This paper presents an interesting example on how process integration
and optimisation allows efficient use of water and energy resources for
energy and food production in biorefineries.
28. Martn M, Grossmann IE: On the systematic synthesis
of sustainable biorefineries. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013,
52:3044-3064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie2030213.
29. Martn M, Grossmann IE: Water-energy nexus in biofuels
production and renewable based power. Sustain Prod Consum
2015, 2:96-108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.06.005.
30. Gabriel KJ, Noureldin M, El-Halwagi MM, Linke P, Jimenez-
Gutierrez A, Martnez DY: Gas-to-liquid (GTL) technology:
targets for process design and water-energy nexus. Curr Opin
Chem Eng 2014, 5:49-54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.coche.2014.05.001.
31. Garcia DJ, You FQ: Life cycle network modeling framework and
solution algorithms for systems analysis and optimization of
the water-energy nexus. Processes 2015, 3:514-539 http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr3030514.
32. Yue D, Slivinsky M, Sumpter J, You F: Sustainable design and
operation of cellulosic bioelectricity supply chain networks
with life cycle economic, environmental, and social
optimization. Ind Eng Chem Res 2014, 53:4008-4029 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie403882v.
33. Yue D, Pandya S, You F: Integrating hybrid life cycle
assessment with multiobjective optimization: a modeling
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
22 Process systems engineering
framework. Environ Sci Technol 2016, 50:1501-1509 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04279.
34. You F, Tao L, Graziano DJ, Snyder SW: Optimal design of
sustainable cellulosic biofuel supply chains: multiobjective
optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and input
output analysis. AIChE J 2012, 58:1157-1180 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/aic.12637.
35. Zhang Y, Baral A, Bakshi BR: Accounting for ecosystem
services in life cycle assessment, part II: toward an
ecologically based LCA. Environ Sci Technol 2010,
44:2624-2631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es900548a.
36. Garcia DJ, You FQ: The water-energy-food nexus and process
 systems engineering: a new focus. Comput Chem Eng 2016,
91:49-67 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.03.003.
This paper comprehensively outlines the potential application of PSE
tools for developing integrated solutions to nexus challenges from a
whole systems perspective.
37. Ahmetovic E, Ibric N, Kravanja Z, Grossmann IE: Water and
energy integration: a comprehensive literature review of
non-isothermal water network synthesis. Comput Chem Eng
2015, 82:144-171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compchemeng.2015.06.011.
38. Leung Pah Hang MY, Martinez-Hernandez E, Leach M, Yang A:
Designing integrated local production systems: a study on the
food-energy-water nexus. J Clean Prod 2016, 135:1065-1084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.194.
39. Lehahn Y, Ingle KN, Golberg A: Global potential of offshore and
 shallow waters macroalgal biorefineries to provide for food,
chemicals and energy: feasibility and sustainability. Algal Res
2016, 17:150-160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.03.031.
This paper reviews the benefits of algae biorefineries to address nexus
and sustainability issues.
40. Chen HG, Zhang YHP: New biorefineries and sustainable
 agriculture: increased food, biofuels, and ecosystem security.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015, 47:117-132 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.048.
This paper reviews how biorefineries could be synergistically integrated
with the agricultural sector.
41. Venkata Mohan S, Nikhil GN, Chiranjeevi P, Nagendranatha
 Reddy C, Rohit MV, Kumar AN et al.: Waste biorefinery models
towards sustainable circular bioeconomy: critical review and
future perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2016, 215:2-12 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.130.
This paper highlights the importance of further processing biorefinery
effluents and residues to improve efficiency of biomass processing and
resource use.
42. Meneses-Jacome A, Diaz-Chavez R, Velasquez-Arredondo HI,
Cardenas-Chavez DL, Parra R, Ruiz-Colorado AA: Sustainable
energy from agro-industrial wastewaters in Latin-America.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016, 56:1249-1262 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.036.
43. Coma M, Martinez Hernandez E, Abeln F, Raikova S, Donnelly J,
Arnot TC et al.: Organic waste as a sustainable feedstock for
platform chemicals. Faraday Discuss 2017 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1039/C7FD00070G.
44. Sawatdeenarunat C, Nguyen D, Surendra KC, Shrestha S,
Rajendran K, Oechsner H et al.: Anaerobic biorefinery: current
status, challenges, and opportunities. Bioresour Technol 2016,
215:304-313 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.074.
45. Monlau F, Sambusiti C, Ficara E, Aboulkas A, Barakat A, Carrere H:
New opportunities for agricultural digestate valorization:
current situation and perspectives. Energy Environ Sci
2015:2600-2621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5EE01633A.
46. Singh S, Bakshi BR: Accounting for the biogeochemical cycle
of nitrogen in inputoutput life cycle assessment. Environ Sci
Technol 2013, 47:9388-9396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es4009757.
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2017, 18:1622
47. Kazan A, Celiktas MS, Sargin S, Yesil-Celiktas O: Bio-based
fractions by hydrothermal treatment of olive pomace: process
optimization and evaluation. Energy Convers Manag 2015,
103:366-373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.06.084.
48. Mason PM, Glover K, Smith JAC, Willis KJ, Woods J,
Thompson IP: The potential of CAM crops as a globally
significant bioenergy resource: moving from fuel or food to
fuel and more food. Energy Environ Sci 2015, 8:2320-2329
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5EE00242G.
49. Bakshi BR, Ziv G, Lepech MD: Techno-ecological synergy: a
framework for sustainable engineering. Environ Sci Technol
2015, 49:1752-1760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5041442.
50. Martinez-Hernandez E, Leung Pah Hang MY, Leach M, Yang A: A
framework for modeling local production systems with
techno-ecological interactions. J Ind Ecol 2016 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12481.
51. Subhadra B, Grinson-George: Algal biorefinery-based industry:
 an approach to address fuel and food insecurity for a carbon-
smart world. J Sci Food Agric 2011, 91:2-13 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/jsfa.4207.
Another paper highlighting the potential for algae biorefineries to address
the food component of the nexus.
52. Abate S, Lanzafame P, Perathoner S, Centi G: New
 sustainable model of biorefineries: biofactories and
challenges of integrating bio- and solar refineries.
ChemSusChem 2015, 8:2854-2866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
cssc.201500277.
An interesting review on opportunities to integrate biomass and CO2
processing with solar energy.
53. Mafakheri F, Nasiri F: Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply
chain operations: applications, challenges and research
directions. Energy Policy 2014, 67:116-126 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.071.
54. Mitchell CP: Development of decision support systems for
bioenergy applications. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 18:265-278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00099-9.
55. De Meyer A, Cattrysse D, Van Orshoven J: A generic
mathematical model to optimise strategic and tactical
decisions in biomass-based supply chains (OPTIMASS). Eur J
Oper Res 2015, 245:247-264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ejor.2015.02.045.
56. Yue D, You F, Snyder SW: Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel
 supply chain optimization: overview, key issues and
challenges. Comput Chem Eng 2014, 66:36-56 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.11.016.
This is a recent review highlighting the opportunities and research needs
from a process systems perspective.
57. Budzianowski WM, Postawa K: Total chain integration of
 sustainable biorefinery systems. Appl Energy 2016,
184:1432-1446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2016.06.050.
This paper reviews the components of a biorefinery system and its value
chain and outlines requirements for a systematic software tool.
58. Samsatli S, Samsatli NJ, Shah N: BVCM: a comprehensive and
flexible toolkit for whole system biomass value chain analysis
and optimisation mathematical formulation. Appl Energy
2015, 147:131-160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2015.01.078.
59. Samsatli S, Samsatli NJ: A general spatio-temporal model of
energy systems with a detailed account of transport and
storage. Comput Chem Eng 2015, 80:155-176 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.05.019.
60. Azapagic A: Sustainability considerations for integrated
biorefineries. Trends Biotechnol 2014, 32:1-4 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.10.009.
www.sciencedirect.com