Environmental and economic analysis of bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses and agave juice
Open accessAbstract
In this article, sugarcane molasses and agave juice were compared as potential feedstocks for producing bioethanol in Mexico in terms of their environmental impact and economic factors. Life cycle assessment (LCA) using SimaPro was carried out to calculate environmental impacts by using a cradle-to-gate approach. A preliminary economic analysis was performed to determine the economic feasibility of the studied options. Also, capital goods costs were obtained using the Aspen Plus economy package. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was involved to compare the environmental and economic viability of producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice. LCA results revealed that cultivation and fermentation were the most harmful stages when producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice, respectively. Furthermore, when it was derived from agave juice rather than sugarcane molasses, it had more environmental benefits. This was ascribed to the lower consumption rate of fertilizers, pesticides, and emissions given off from the former. Regarding financial aspects, the preliminary analysis showed that producing bioethanol was not economically viable when grid energy alone was used. However, if power from the grid is partially replaced with renewable energy, producing bioethanol becomes economically feasible, and sugarcane molasses is the most suitable feedstock. Graphical abstract
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This cradle-to-gate LCA and preliminary economic analysis compares bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice in Mexico. Agave juice has lower environmental impacts per MJ, but sugarcane molasses is the more economically favorable feedstock when part of grid energy is replaced by renewables.
Key findings
- Agave juice bioethanol had lower impacts than sugarcane molasses across all assessed categories: GWP was 3.26E+00 kg CO2 eq/MJ for molasses vs. 6.72E-01 kg CO2 eq/MJ for agave, and sugarcane-to-bioethanol GHG emissions were 384% higher.
- For sugarcane molasses, sugar extraction was the main hotspot in almost all categories, contributing >45% and up to 47% for HTPnc, while bioethanol production contributed <15%. For agave juice, bioethanol production was the main hotspot: 72% GWP, 57% ODP, 81% HOFP/EOFP, 79% TAP, 60% FEP, 61% HTPc, 54% HTPnc, 83% FFP, and 85% WCP.
- Base-case economics with 100% grid energy were not viable: NPV was −1,521,947 € for molasses and −1,785,235 € for agave juice. With renewable energy substitution, molasses reached NPV=0 at 73.5% grid/26.5% renewable (payback 11 years, IRR 7%), while agave reached NPV=0 at 17.1% grid/82.9% renewable (payback 11 years, IRR 9%).
- From 1000 kg/h molasses, the simulation produced 170 kg/h bioethanol and 1080 kg/h vinasse; from 1000 kg/h agave juice, it produced 45 kg/h bioethanol and 990 kg/h vinasse.
Methods
- Cradle-to-gate LCA using SimaPro 8 and ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H), with a functional unit of 1 MJ bioethanol; stages were cultivation, juice extraction, fermentation, and distillation. Inventory data came from a real plant in Veracruz, Mexico, literature, Ecoinvent, and Aspen Plus V.9 simulations; economic allocation was used for co-products.
- Preliminary economic analysis used the percentage methodology and Aspen Plus economy package, with V-class accuracy of 30–50%; indicators were NPV, IRR, and payback. A sensitivity analysis replaced grid energy with renewable energy in 25% increments.
- Cultivation assumptions included a 5-year sugarcane cycle and a 6-year agave cycle; fermentation was simulated with sucrose conversion to glucose/fructose at 100% and glucose/fructose to bioethanol/CO2 at 85.7%.
Limitations
- Stated: the LCA excluded capital goods, staff, and buildings; excluded use and end-of-life of sugar and bioethanol products; assumed extraction and biorefinery plants were co-located; and used a preliminary V-class economic evaluation accurate to 30–50%. The sensitivity analysis assumed renewable energy had zero cost and zero environmental impact.
- Evident from the text: the LCA relies on inventory from one real plant in Veracruz plus literature/database values, and results depend on economic allocation choices for co-products. No formal uncertainty analysis beyond scenario/sensitivity checks is reported.
- Evident from the text: the conclusion states agave juice seems more promising economically, while the abstract and reported NPV/IRR results indicate sugarcane molasses is the more profitable feedstock under the modeled renewable-energy scenarios.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 48 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Sugarcane extraction showed the greatest environmental impact in almost all impact categories, with values higher than 45%.
“According to Figure 4, sugarcane extraction showed the greatest results in almost all impact categories whose values were higher than 45%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
- Findingown data
Bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses showed the lowest contribution in all impact categories (<15%).
“whereas bioethanol production showed the lowest contribution in all categories (<15%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Under partial replacement of grid power with renewable energy, sugarcane molasses is the most suitable feedstock.
“and sugarcane molasses is the most suitable feedstock.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses, cultivation was the most harmful stage.
“LCA results revealed that cultivation and fermentation were the most harmful stages when producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Bioethanol derived from agave juice has more environmental benefits than bioethanol derived from sugarcane molasses.
“Furthermore, when it was derived from agave juice rather than sugarcane molasses, it had more environmental benefits.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
If power from the grid is partially replaced with renewable energy, producing bioethanol becomes economically feasible.
“However, if power from the grid is partially replaced with renewable energy, producing bioethanol becomes economically feasible”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
To provide 1 MJ of energy, 3.73E-02 kg of bioethanol is needed.
“In this sense, considering the energy of bioethanol, to provide 1 MJ of energy, 3.73E-02 kg of bioethanol is needed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Sugarcane extraction had the highest impact on HTPnc (47%).
“It had the highest impact on HTPnc (47%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Producing bioethanol from the studied feedstocks is not economically viable when grid energy alone is used.
“the preliminary analysis showed that producing bioethanol was not economically viable when grid energy alone was used.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For bioethanol production from agave juice, fermentation was the most harmful stage.
“LCA results revealed that cultivation and fermentation were the most harmful stages when producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
A higher amount of raw materials and utilities was required to produce 1 MJ of bioethanol from agave juice compared with sugarcane molasses.
“Therefore, a higher amount of both raw materials and utilities was required to produce 1 MJ of bioethanol from agave juice in comparison to sugarcane molasses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
- Findingown data
For agave juice, bioethanol production contributed the highest impact in all categories.
“According to Figure 5, bioethanol production contributed to the highest impact in all categories.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
- Findingreasoning
For agave, bioethanol production was the most environmentally damaging stage.
“As for agave, bioethanol production was the most environmentally damaging stage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
- Findingown data
Higher values were observed for HTPnc than HTPc for sugarcane cultivation.
“Also, higher values were observed for HTPnc than those for HTPc for sugarcane cultivation (Table 6).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Both cultivation and juice extraction showed similar values in all categories for agave.
“Additionally, both cultivation and juice extraction showed similar values in all categories, as shown in Figure 5.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Molasses generated much higher impact values than agave juice.
“Therefore, in this way, molasses was seen to generate much higher impact values than agave juice (Tables 6 and 7)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Impact value for ODP in molasses was higher than in agave juice.
“In Table 8, it was observed that the impact value for ODP in molasses was higher than that in agave juice.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingcitation
NOx, SOx, NH3, CO, and hydrocarbons emitted from producing/using fertilizers/pesticides, transport, burning coal/bagasse, and energy production were main contributing factors to HOFP, EOFP, and TAP.
“Moreover, NOx, SOx, NH3, CO, and hydrocarbons were given off on producing and using fertilizers and pesticides, transport, burning coal and bagasse, and energy production were the main contributing factors to the following: HOFP, EOFP, and TAP, as shown in Table 8 (Brizmohun et al. 2015, Costa et al. 2018, Ghani and Gheewala 2018, Ruiz et al. 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Findingcitation
Emissions of Halon-1211, Halon-1301, CFC-10, and CFC-12 were the most detrimental to the environment in terms of ODP.
“the data provided by SimaPro indicated that emissions of Halon-1211, Halon-1301, CFC-10, and CFC-12 were the most detrimental to the environment in terms of ODP (González-García et al. 2012).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites González-García et al. 2012 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Global NOx emissions in agave-to-bioethanol were 1.22E-04 kg/MJ.
“while in agave-to-bioethanol, they were 1.22E-04 kg/MJ of bioethanol, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
GHG for sugarcane was 3.26 kg CO2-eq/MJ.
“Indeed, GHG for sugarcane was 3.26 kg of CO2-eq/MJ”
- Also stated in: § Comparison with other studies · plain
“Table 8 shows that around 3.26 kg CO2-eq/MJ was given off when sugarcane molasses was the feedstock.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Comparison with other studies · plain
- Findingown data
GHG for agave was 0.67 kg CO2-eq/MJ.
“while for agave; this figure was only 0.67 kg.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
GHG emissions for sugarcane-to-bioethanol were 384% higher than for agave-to-bioethanol.
“When converting sugarcane-to-bioethanol, the amount of GHG emissions was 384% higher than those for agave-to-bioethanol.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Bioethanol produced from agave juice made a relatively minor contribution in all categories.
“On comparing both scenarios, bioethanol produced from agave juice was seen to make a relatively minor contribution in all categories.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Global NOx emissions in sugarcane-to-bioethanol were 1.86E-05 kg/MJ.
“According to Tables 1 and 2, global NOx emissions in sugarcane-to-bioethanol were 1.86E-05 kg/MJ of bioethanol”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation
Raw materials (coal, natural gas, oil) for producing diesel and chemical products were main contributing factors to FFP.
“Finally, the raw materials used (coal, natural gas, and oil) for producing diesel and chemical products were the main contributing factors to FFP (Table 8)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Findingnone given
In sugarcane cultivation, considerably more fertilizers, pesticides, and compost were used.
“In sugarcane cultivation, considerably more fertilizers, pesticides, and compost were used.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Sugarcane is relatively more reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, coal, and diesel than agave.
“This may be because sugarcane is relatively more reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, coal, and diesel than agave.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Bioethanol from sugarcane had greater environmental impact in terms of HOFP, EOFP, and TAP than agave.
“The higher amount of NOx given off and greater consumption of these feedstocks (i.e., coal, pesticides, and fertilizer) in sugarcane meant that bioethanol from this raw material had a greater environmental impact in terms of HOFP, EOFP, and TAP than agave (Figure 6 and Table 8)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Findingown data
Sugarcane had higher impact values than agave for FFP and WCP.
“As observed in the other categories, as well as FFP and WCP, sugarcane had higher impact values than agave (Figure 6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
HTPc values for sugarcane were 78% higher than agave.
“(78% for HTPc and 89% for HTPnc).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
In terms of human toxicity, values for sugarcane were up to approximately 70% higher than for agave.
“Figure 6 and Table 8 show that in terms of human toxicity, values for sugarcane were up to approximately 70% higher than they were for agave”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
HTPnc values for sugarcane were 89% higher than agave.
“(78% for HTPc and 89% for HTPnc).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Sugarcane cultivation created the highest amount of wastewater ash and emissions (P2O5).
“Additionally, this process created the highest amount of wastewater ash and emissions (P2O5) (Table 1)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Coal-produced energy was primarily responsible for the negative environmental impact in sugar and agave juice extraction.
“For sugar and agave juice extraction, coal-produced energy was primarily responsible for the negative environmental impact.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
These led to a greater impact on FEP than agave.
“all of which led to a greater impact on FEP than agave did (Figure 6 and Table 8)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Findingcitation
Water used in irrigation, preparing fertilizers/pesticides, extracting sugar/agave, producing bioethanol contributed to WCP.
“Moreover, the water used in irrigation (sugarcane), preparing fertilizers and pesticides, extracting sugar and agave, and producing bioethanol contributed to WCP (Table 8) (Papong et al. 2017).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Papong et al. 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingcitation
High emissions were given off with sugarcane.
“It was also on account of the high emissions given off with the former (Tables 1–3)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
From 1000 kg/h of molasses, 170 kg/h of bioethanol were produced.
“from 1000 kg/h of molasses, 170 kg/h of bioethanol and 1080 kg/h of vinasse were produced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Capital investment for producing bioethanol from agave juice was 1,036,068 €.
“while for agave juice these figures were 1,036,068 €, 828,854 €, and 207,214 €, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Changing from the Mexican energy grid to renewables significantly reduces most environmental impacts.
“Figures 7 and 8 show that by changing from the Mexican energy grid to renewables, most of these impacts will be significantly reduced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Renewable energy would not have an environmental impact.
- Findingown data
Producing 1 MJ of ethanol from agave requires 1.90 MJ of energy.
“According to Figures 1 and 2, producing 1 MJ of ethanol from sugarcane and agave would require 1.25 and 1.90 MJ of energy, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Main stage contributing to high environmental impact in agave plant-to-bioethanol chain was producing bioethanol from agave juice.
“Considering the agave plant-to-bioethanol production chain, the main stage that contributed to the high environmental impact was producing bioethanol from agave juice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Working capital for producing bioethanol from molasses was 215,056 €.
“capital investment, fixed capital, and working capital for producing bioethanol from molasses were 1,075,281 €, 860,225 €, and 215,056 €, respectively”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
A higher drop in environmental impacts would be observed if agave was employed as the feedstock.
“However, a higher drop would be observed if agave was employed as the feedstock.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Renewable energy would not have an environmental impact.
- Findingown data
This value was lower than that reported for sugarcane juice.
“whose value was lower than that reported for sugarcane juice, as shown in Table 8.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
From 1000 kg/h of agave juice, 990 kg/h of vinasse were produced.
“from 1000 kg/h of agave juice, 45 kg/h of bioethanol and 990 kg/h of vinasse were produced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Working capital for producing bioethanol from agave juice was 207,214 €.
“while for agave juice these figures were 1,036,068 €, 828,854 €, and 207,214 €, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
From 1000 kg/h of molasses, 1080 kg/h of vinasse were produced.
“from 1000 kg/h of molasses, 170 kg/h of bioethanol and 1080 kg/h of vinasse were produced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Similar values were observed in three categories (GWP, FEP, FFP) between this study and Ghani and Gheewala (2018).
“On comparing the results obtained for the five categories in this research and those by Ghani and Gheewala (2018), similar values were observed in three of them (GWP, FEP, and FFP).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ghani and Gheewala 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Fixed capital for producing bioethanol from agave juice was 828,854 €.
“while for agave juice these figures were 1,036,068 €, 828,854 €, and 207,214 €, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Fixed capital for producing bioethanol from molasses was 860,225 €.
“capital investment, fixed capital, and working capital for producing bioethanol from molasses were 1,075,281 €, 860,225 €, and 215,056 €, respectively”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
From 1000 kg/h of agave juice, 45 kg/h of bioethanol were produced.
“from 1000 kg/h of agave juice, 45 kg/h of bioethanol and 990 kg/h of vinasse were produced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Sugar extraction contributed to a greater extent of environmental impact than cultivation and bioethanol production.
“In this paper, sugar extraction contributed to a greater extent of the environmental impact than cultivation and bioethanol production.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Capital investment for producing bioethanol from molasses was 1,075,281 €.
“capital investment, fixed capital, and working capital for producing bioethanol from molasses were 1,075,281 €, 860,225 €, and 215,056 €, respectively”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
GWP would be reduced by almost 50% if energy came from renewable sources and sugarcane was employed to produce bioethanol.
“For instance, GWP would be reduced by almost 50%, if the energy came from renewable sources and sugarcane was employed to produce bioethanol.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Renewable energy would not have an environmental impact.
- Findingown data
Cultivation was not the main hotspot when producing bioethanol from sugarcane.
“As observed in this study, cultivation was not the main hotspot when producing bioethanol from sugarcane.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Producing 1 MJ of ethanol from sugarcane requires 1.25 MJ of energy.
“According to Figures 1 and 2, producing 1 MJ of ethanol from sugarcane and agave would require 1.25 and 1.90 MJ of energy, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Carbon footprint of ethanol from agave was 0.70 kg CO2-eq/MJ.
“As for the ethanol produced from agave, we reported a carbon footprint of 0.70 kg CO2-eq/MJ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Sugar extraction accounted for at least 46% in all categories assessed.
“Indeed, it accounted for at least 46% in all the categories assessed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
If 26.5% of renewable energy is employed along the grid, then producing bioethanol from agave juice would be economically feasible.
“However, if 26.5% of renewable energy is employed along the grid, then producing bioethanol from agave juice would be economically feasible.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Molasses were more profitable than agave.
“However, there were considerable differences between both scenarios as molasses were more profitable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Varying the energy source had a significant influence on all three economic parameters.
“The sensitivity analysis showed that varying the energy source had a significant influence on all three economic parameters (Table 12).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Neither of the feedstocks is feasible if the current Mexican energy grid is employed.
“the economic analysis revealed that neither of the feedstocks is feasible if the current Mexican energy grid is employed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Producing bioethanol from agave juice had less environmental impact than sugarcane juice.
“On the one hand, producing bioethanol from agave juice had a less environmental impact than sugarcane juice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
If part of the grid energy were replaced with renewable energy, the two bioethanol production processes would become more economically viable.
“On analyzing the results, it was observed that if part of the grid energy were replaced with renewable energy, the two bioethanol production processes would become more economically viable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Neither of the two bioethanol production scenarios were profitable.
“The results obtained from this economic evaluation indicated that neither of the two-bioethanol production scenarios were profitable”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
VPN for molasses was −1,521,947 €.
“given that the VPN values obtained were negative (−1,521,947 € for molasses and −1,785,235 € for agave juice)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Producing bioethanol was only profitable with 73.5% grid energy and 26.5% renewable energy for molasses.
“So, producing bioethanol was only profitable with the ratios 17.1% grid energy and 82.9% renewable energy and 73.5% grid energy and 26.5% renewable energy for agave juice and molasses, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Time for seeing a return on investment was over 15 years.
“and the time for seeing a return on investment was over 15 years.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Bioethanol production stage contributed to a higher extent (>60%) than cultivation and juice extraction due to low amounts of ethanol yielded in fermentation.
“Among stages, bioethanol production contributed to a higher extent (>60%) than cultivation and juice extraction due to the low amounts of ethanol yielded in fermentation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Producing bioethanol was only profitable with 17.1% grid energy and 82.9% renewable energy for agave juice.
“So, producing bioethanol was only profitable with the ratios 17.1% grid energy and 82.9% renewable energy and 73.5% grid energy and 26.5% renewable energy for agave juice and molasses, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
VPN for agave was −1,785,235 €.
“given that the VPN values obtained were negative (−1,521,947 € for molasses and −1,785,235 € for agave juice)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Using and producing coal for energy and steam were the factors with most impact on FFP at sugar extraction.
“In terms of sugar extraction, using and producing coal for obtaining energy and steam were found to be the factors which had most impact on FFP.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Agave juice is able to produce bioethanol by fermentation.
“Furthermore, agave juice is well known for its ability to produce bioethanol by fermentation (Corbin et al. 2016; Tauer et al. 2004).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationown data
The negative impacts on FEP and FFP were also due to P2O5 emissions, diesel use, P-based fertilizers, and compost.
“Moreover, the negative impacts on both categories were also due to P2O5 emissions, the use of diesel, P-based fertilizers, and compost (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
There is still enough unused land where agave can be cultivated.
“Additionally, there is still enough unused land where agave can be cultivated.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Núñez et al. 2011
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Bioethanol is characterized as being high in energy, 26.8 MJ/kg.
“Bioethanol is characterized as being high in energy, 26.8 MJ/kg (Consorcio 2012; Ecoinvent 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Consorcio 2012
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Ecoinvent 2019
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
The main contributing factors to FEP at sugar extraction were background processes such as coal production and emissions during these processes.
“The SimaPro software identified that the main contributing factors to FEP at the second stage were background processes, such as coal production and emissions during these processes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The greater environmental benefits of agave juice compared with sugarcane molasses are due to lower consumption of fertilizers, pesticides, and emissions from agave.
“This was ascribed to the lower consumption rate of fertilizers, pesticides, and emissions given off from the former.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The high environmental impact of cultivating sugarcane was due to emissions from organic and inorganic fertilizers, water, and diesel used.
“The high environmental impact on cultivating sugarcane was due to emissions from organic and inorganic fertilizers, water, and the diesel used.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The GWP impact of sugar extraction was mainly due to high amounts of CO2 given off and background processes (quicklime and coal production).
“The results obtained for the former were mainly due to the high amounts of CO2 given off (Table 2) and background processes (quicklime and coal production).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The GWP impact of sugarcane cultivation was associated with GHG emissions and diesel used in transport.
“Also, the GWP impact value obtained for sugarcane cultivation was associated with the GHG given off and the diesel used in transport (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
SOx emissions from fertilizers and energy production (background processes) significantly contributed to TAP.
“In addition, SOx emissions from fertilizers and energy production (background processes) significantly contributed to this.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Background processes such as producing fertilizers and pesticides were harmful in terms of HTPc and HTPnc.
“In addition, background processes such as producing fertilizers and pesticides were harmful in terms of HTPc and HTPnc (Silalertruksa et al. 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Silalertruksa et al. 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The high environmental impact of bioethanol production from agave juice was associated with low sucrose concentration and consequently low ethanol yield during fermentation, which affected performance.
“This was associated with the low sucrose concentration and consequently low ethanol yield during fermentation, factors which affected performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
At the cultivation stage, using fertilizers and transport had a high impact on ODP due to CH4 and N2O emissions.
“At the cultivation stage, using fertilizers and transport had a high impact on ODP due to CH4 and N2O emissions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Human toxicity categories were affected by emissions such as nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde given off mainly in energy and chemical production.
“Human toxicity categories were affected by emissions such as those from nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde that were given off mainly in energy and chemical production.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
NH3 and NOx emissions from cultivation (transport and using fertilizer and pesticide) were the main contributors to TAP.
“NH3 and NOx emissions from cultivation (transport and using fertilizer and pesticide) were the main contributors to TAP.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Raw materials such as coal, natural gas, and oil used in background processes were the main components influencing FFP.
“Raw materials such as coal, natural gas, and oil used in background processes were found to be the main components which influenced FFP.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The high GWP value (6.72E-01 kg CO2 eq) was also due to CO2 given off when fermenting agave juice.
“The high value of GWP (6.72E-01 kg CO2 eq) was also due to the CO2 given off when fermenting agave juice (Table 3) (Amores et al. 2013; González-García et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2013).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationcitation
The HTPnc and HTPc impacts of sugarcane cultivation were mainly associated with background processes (fertilizer and pesticide production) and emissions (e.g., benzene, cadmium, nickel, chromium).
“According to SimaPro’s data, these impacts were mainly associated with background processes (fertilizer and pesticide production) and emissions (e.g., benzene, cadmium, nickel, chromium) (Silalertruksa et al. 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Silalertruksa et al. 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
CH4 emissions (background processes) were detrimental to GWP and ODP.
“Also, CH4 emissions (background processes) were detrimental to GWP and ODP (Nguyen and Gheewala 2008, Zhang et al. 2010).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationown data
Transportation, using fertilizers, and compost made a significant contribution to TAP as they generated high amounts of NOx and NH3.
“Transportation, using fertilizers, and compost made a significant contribution to TAP as they generated high amounts of NOx and NH3 (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
WCP was affected by the high amounts of water used in irrigation and preparing fertilizers.
“Finally, WCP was affected by the high amounts of water used in irrigation and preparing fertilizers (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
For HOFP and EOFP, the impacts of sugarcane cultivation (1.80E-03 and 1.85E-03 kg NOx eq, respectively) were associated with NOx emissions from transport and background processes (energy and diesel production).
“For HOFP and EOFP, the impacts with sugarcane cultivation (Table 6; 1.80E-03 and 1.85E-03 kg NOx eq, respectively) were associated with NOx emissions from transport and background processes (energy and diesel production) (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Energy production had a significant influence on almost all categories analyzed (GWP, ODP, HOFP, EOFP, TAP, HTPc, HTPnc, and FFP), mainly due to large amounts of emissions.
“Energy production, considered to be a background process, had a significant influence on almost all the categories analyzed (GWP, ODP, HOFP, EOFP, TAP, HTPc, HTPnc, and FFP), mainly due to the large amount of emissions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Producing and using grid energy to produce bioethanol were the main explanatory factors behind the detrimental environmental impact of agave bioethanol production.
“The information generated by SimaPro software indicated that producing and using grid energy to produce bioethanol were the main explanatory factors behind this detrimental environmental impact (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
NOx emissions were primarily responsible for the values obtained in HOFP, EOFP, and TAP.
“For instance, NOx emissions were observed to be primarily responsible for the values obtained in HOFP, EOFP, and TAP.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The cultivation-stage inventory data were provided from a real plant in Veracruz, Mexico.
“In this study, data collected for the raw material, utilities, and products at the cultivation stage were provided from a real plant in Mexico (Veracruz).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Agave juice is more environmental-friendly than molasses.
“Hence, agave juice is more environmental-friendly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Molasses were more harmful to the environment overall than agave juice.
“and, consequently, molasses were more harmful to the environment overall.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The impact value in ODP could be linked to cultivation.
“Also, the impact value obtained in this category could be linked to cultivation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
On producing energy, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, diesel, coal, and compost, pollutants such as nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde were given off, damaging environment in HTPc and HTPnc.
“Moreover, on producing energy, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, diesel, coal, and compost (background processes), pollutants such as nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde (that damaged the environment in terms of HTPc and HTPnc) were given off (Brizmohun et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brizmohun et al. 2015 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The higher human toxicity for sugarcane may be because of greater reliance on fertilizers, pesticides, coal, and diesel and high emissions.
“This may be because sugarcane is relatively more reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, coal, and diesel than agave. It was also on account of the high emissions given off with the former (Tables 1–3)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
A decrease in CH4, CO2, N2O, and NOx emissions reduces impact values in terms of GWP, HOFP, EOFP, and TAP.
“A decrease in CH4, CO2, N2O, and NOx emissions in turn reduces impact values in terms of GWP, HOFP, EOFP, and TAP, among others (Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Discrepancies in research were ascribed to assessment models, allocation method, and inventory data.
“These discrepancies in the research were ascribed to (i) assessment models (e.g., CML and ReCiPe), (ii) allocation method, (iii) and inventory data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The observed carbon footprint is quite similar to that previously reported in other research.
“In other words, it can be concluded that the observed carbon footprint is quite similar for that previously reported in other research.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The relatively higher drop for agave was associated with the energy consumption required to produce bioethanol.
“The relatively higher drop for agave was associated with the energy consumption required to produce bioethanol.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This was mainly attributed to energy consumption on purifying bioethanol.
“This was mainly attributed to energy consumption on purifying the bioethanol.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
A reduction in oil consumption would cause a fall in GHG emissions.
“A reduction in oil consumption would cause a fall in GHG emissions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The higher GHG value in this study compared to Yan et al. was due to energy consumed from the Mexican grid.
“and our value was higher due to the energy consumed from the Mexican grid.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Unprofitability might have been mainly due to high amount of energy used to produce bioethanol which entailed high utility costs.
“This might have been mainly due to the high amount of energy used to produce bioethanol which entailed high utility costs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The considerable differences between both scenarios could be attributed to the lower yields for agave juice in comparison to those for molasses.
“These considerable differences between both scenarios could be attributed to the lower yields for agave juice in comparison to those for molasses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This was ascribed to the low consumption of pesticides, coal, and water throughout the whole chain.
“This was ascribed to the low consumption of pesticides, coal, and water throughout the whole chain.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Using agave juice rather than sugarcane molasses as a feedstock for producing bioethanol seems more promising from an environmental and economic point of view.
“Briefly, using agave juice, rather than sugarcane molasses as a feedstock for producing bioethanol, seems to be more promising from an environmental and economic point of view.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 13
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataFor FEP and FFP, sugar extraction had the highest values (9.38E-05 kg P eq and 3.19E-01 kg oil eq, respectively).
“In this respect, the values obtained at sugar extraction in terms of FEP and FFP were 9.38E-05 kg P eq and 3.19E -01 kg of oil eq, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor GWP, sugar extraction had the highest impact value (1.82 kg CO2 eq), followed by sugarcane cultivation (1.04 kg CO2 eq) and bioethanol production (3.99E-01 kg CO2 eq).
“Thus, sugar extraction had the highest impact value (1.82 kg CO2 eq) followed by sugarcane cultivation (1.04 kg CO2 eq) and bioethanol production (3.99E-01 kg CO2 eq).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe contributions of bioethanol production from agave juice were: 72% GWP, 57% ODP, 81% HOFP and EOFP, 79% TAP, 60% FEP, 61% HTPc, 54% HTPnc, 83% FFP, and 85% WCP.
“The values obtained for this were the following: 72% (GWP), 57% (ODP), 81% (HOFP and EOFP), 79% (TAP), 60% (FEP), 61% (HTPc), 54% (HTPnc), 83% (FFP), and 85% (WCP).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe impact values for HOFP and EOFP at agave cultivation were 6.42E-05 and 6.65E-05 kg NOx eq, respectively, and were attributed to NOx emissions given off when raw materials, fertilizers, and pesticides were transported.
“According to Table 7, the impact values for HOFP and EOFP were 6.42E-05 and 6.65E-05 kg NOx eq, respectively, and these were attributed to NOx emissions (Table 1) given off when raw materials, fertilizers, and pesticides were being transported.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningMore gases were given off to cultivate sugarcane than agave.
“This may be because more pesticides were required, and more gases were given off to cultivate sugarcane than agave (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
FindingreasoningImpacts on producing bioethanol from agave juice were observed to be higher than those for molasses.
“However, in the previous analyses, impacts on producing bioethanol from agave juice were observed to be higher than those for molasses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
FindingreasoningMore pesticides were required to cultivate sugarcane than agave.
“This may be because more pesticides were required, and more gases were given off to cultivate sugarcane than agave (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningProducing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice was economically viable, and better results were achieved with molasses.
“Hence, producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice was economically viable, and better results were achieved with the former.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationBioethanol combustion is more efficient than gasoline and gives off fewer emissions of pollutants such as SOx, NOx, and particulate matter.
“Bioethanol is one potential renewable fuel, whose combustion is more efficient than gasoline, and, consequently, gives off fewer emissions of pollutants such as SOx, NOx, and particulate matter (Zabed et al. 2017).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Zabed et al. 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn Jalisco and Oaxaca, about 1.7 million and 60,000 hectares are available respectively for cultivating agave, but at present agave has taken up only 30% of this land.
“For instance, in Jalisco and Oaxaca, there are about 1.7 million and 60,000 hectares available respectively for cultivating agave, but at present it has only taken up 30% of this land (Núñez et al. 2011).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Núñez et al. 2011
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationIn ODP, the most influential factors were N2O emissions from N-based fertilizers and compost and CH4 from transport burning diesel.
“In ODP, the most influential factors were N2O emissions from N-based fertilizers and compost and the CH4 given off from transport from burning diesel (Table 1) (Papong et al. 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Papong et al. 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe effect of producing bioethanol on FEP was related to agave cultivation and juice extraction, while WCP was affected by water consumed at the last stage.
“Also, the effect producing bioethanol had on FEP was related to agave cultivation and juice extraction, while WCP was affected by the water consumed at the last stage (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationThe input and output data for the extraction stage were taken from the literature.
“In addition, the input and output data for the extraction stage were taken from the literature (Consorcio 2012; Gamboa 2006; Livier 2004; Marín 2014; SAGARPA 2018a).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Consorcio 2012
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Gamboa 2006
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Livier 2004
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationThe cost estimations in the preliminary economic analysis were accurate between 30% and 50%.
“This approach is commonly used for screening alternatives, and all cost estimations were accurate between 30% and 50% (Becerra et al. 2017; Proaño et al. 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe higher ODP in molasses may be because more pesticides were required and more gases were given off to cultivate sugarcane than agave.
“This may be because more pesticides were required, and more gases were given off to cultivate sugarcane than agave (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationGHG emissions, N-fertilizers, coal, and energy increased GWP.
“GHG emissions, as well as using N-fertilizers, coal, and energy, increased the value of GWP (Nguyen and Gheewala 2008, Pryor et al. 2017, Wang et al. 2012).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitationAir, water, and soil emissions at the cultivation stage were calculated according to IPCC, EPA, and Ecoinvent.
“However, air, water, and soil emissions at this stage were calculated according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Ecoinvent (EPA 2016, 2017, Klein et al. 2006, Nemecek and Kägi 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites EPA 2016, 2017
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Klein et al. 2006
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Nemecek and Kägi 2007
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationVinasse could not be directly applied to the field, but could be used in conjunction with other residues from the sugar refinery and sold.
“The vinasse obtained could not be directly applied to the field, although it could be used in conjunction with other residues from the sugar refinery, and in this way, it could be sold (Consorcio 2012).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Consorcio 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGlobal warming potential ranged between 0.016 and 400 kg CO2 produced for 1 MJ of ethanol from sugarcane.
“According to the literature review, global warming potential ranged between 0.016 and 400 kg CO2 produced for 1 MJ of ethanol from sugarcane (Amores et al. 2013, Farahani and Asoodar 2017, Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009, Valencia and Cardona 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationcitationDifferences in TAP and HTPc might be linked to different assumptions made, such as burning cane waste and producing biogas.
“The differences seen in the other two (TAP and HTPc) might have been linked to the different assumptions made, such as burning cane waste and producing biogas (Ghani and Gheewala 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ghani and Gheewala 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThis stage is known to be one of the main hotspots within the life cycle.
“This stage is known to be one of the main hotspots within the life cycle (Sanchez et al. 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sanchez et al. 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe Mexican energy grid was mainly oil-based (>60%), while renewables accounted for under 20%.
“This reduction was based on the fact that the energy grid in Mexico was mainly oil-based (>60%), while renewables still accounted for under 20% (Sarmiento et al. 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sarmiento et al. 2019 source
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
No prior study compares the environmental impacts of bioethanol from both sugarcane molasses and agave juice.
“To date, there are no studies in which the environmental impacts associated with bioethanol from both sugarcane molasses and agave juice are compared.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Both crops were profitable in Mexico.
“since both crops were profitable in Mexico”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no land competition for food because agave grows on semiarid lands where food crops cannot be cultivated.
“there is no land competition for food since agave grows on semiarid lands where food crops cannot be cultivated.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as a “market” dataset.
“Chemical, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy production were included within the system boundaries as “market” dataset.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant was considered.
“Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant were considered.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.
“The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed to be in the same place.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from the evaluation.
“Capital goods, staff, and buildings were excluded from this evaluation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.
“The system boundary excluded the usage and end of life for sugar and bioethanol products.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A 5-year cycle was assumed for producing sugarcane.
“In this study, a 5-year cycle was assumed for producing sugarcane.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A 6-year cycle was assumed for agave cultivation.
“In this research, a 6-year cycle was assumed for agave cultivation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Sucrose was converted into glucose and fructose at a rate of 100%.
“it was assumed that sucrose was converted into glucose and fructose at a rate of 100%”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Glucose and fructose were converted into bioethanol and CO2 at a rate of 85.7%.
“while the rate for converting glucose and fructose into bioethanol and CO2 was assumed to be 85.7% (Ghani and Gheewala 2018).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The by-product obtained in the first distillation unit (vinasse) was considered to be an avoided product.
“The by-product obtained in the first distillation unit (vinasse) was considered to be an avoided product.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Renewable energy would not have an environmental impact.
“In this research, we assumed that renewable energy would not have an environmental impact.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One way of increasing the competitiveness of biofuels on the value chain is by the use of renewable energy, as it is one of the main costs and also constraints when talking about sustainability.
“one way of increasing the competitiveness of biofuels on the value chain is by the use of renewable energy, as it is one of the main costs and also constraints when talking about sustainability [111,112].”
From Assessing the future prospects of emerging technologies for shipping and aviation biofuels: A critical review (2024) · cites this paper as [111]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Abstract names the wrong sugarcane hotspot
MajorThe abstract identifies cultivation as the most harmful sugarcane stage, but the results identify sugar extraction as the greatest contributor.
“LCA results revealed that cultivation and fermentation were the most harmful stages when producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice, respectively.”
“According to Figure 4, sugarcane extraction showed the greatest results in almost all impact categories whose values were higher than 45%.”
Conclusion gives the agave break-even energy mix for molasses
MajorThe conclusion says agave becomes economically feasible with 26.5% renewable energy. Table 11 assigns that break-even mix to molasses; agave requires 82.9% renewable energy.
“However, if 26.5% of renewable energy is employed along the grid, then producing bioethanol from agave juice would be economically feasible.”
“| Scenario 5 | Scenario 5 | 17.1% vs. 82.9 % | 0 | 11 | 9 |”
Conclusion reverses the economic ranking
MajorThe conclusion calls agave more promising economically, whereas the economic analysis says molasses is more profitable.
“Briefly, using agave juice, rather than sugarcane molasses as a feedstock for producing bioethanol, seems to be more promising from an environmental and economic point of view.”
“However, there were considerable differences between both scenarios as molasses were more profitable.”
Annual molasses utility totals differ between tables
MajorTable 9 reports €829,000 per year for molasses utilities, while Table 10 reports €765,000 per year for the same category.
“| Total utilities costs | €/year | 829,000 | 320,500 |”
“| Total utilities costs | €/year | 765,000 | 467,300 |”
Agave equipment subtotal does not add up
MinorThe ten listed agave equipment costs total €224,750, not the reported €200,100.
Reported 200100 · recomputed 224750
“| Major purchased equipment (E) | € | 208,400 | 200,100 |”
Molasses equipment subtotal does not add up
MinorThe ten listed molasses equipment costs total €223,040, not the reported €208,400.
Reported 208400 · recomputed 223040
“| Major purchased equipment (E) | € | 208,400 | 200,100 |”
NOx comparison reverses the reported emissions
MinorThe paper reports more than six times as much NOx for agave-to-bioethanol as for sugarcane-to-bioethanol, then attributes sugarcane's greater impacts partly to a higher amount of NOx given off.
“According to Tables 1 and 2, global NOx emissions in sugarcane-to-bioethanol were 1.86E-05 kg/MJ of bioethanol, while in agave-to-bioethanol, they were 1.22E-04 kg/MJ of bioethanol, respectively.”
“The higher amount of NOx given off and greater consumption of these feedstocks (i.e., coal, pesticides, and fertilizer) in sugarcane meant that bioethanol from this raw material had a greater environmental impact in terms of HOFP, EOFP, and TAP than agave”
Table 8 labels per-MJ results as per-kilogram results
MinorThe text says Table 8 reports impacts for 1 MJ of bioethanol, consistent with the study's functional unit, but the table caption labels them as impacts for 1 kg.
“Table: Table 8 LCA analysis comparing the production of 1 kg of bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice”
“Table 8 shows the impact values for 1 MJ of bioethanol produced from sugarcane molasses and agave juice.”
Agave purchased-equipment totals differ between tables
MinorTables 9 and 10 give different totals for major purchased agave equipment: €200,100 and €200,800.
“| Major purchased equipment (E) | € | 208,400 | 200,100 |”
“| Major purchased equipment (E) | € | 208,400 | 200,800 |”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 66
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Gómez-Merino FC, Trejo-Téllez LI, Salazar-Ortiz J, Pérez-Sato JA, Sentíes-Herrera HE, Bello-Bello JJ, Aguilar-Rivera N (2017) La diversificación de la agroindustria azucarera como estrategia para México. Agro productividad 10:7–14
- Klein C, Novoa R, Ogle S, Smith K, Rochette P, Wirth T, Rypdal K (2006) Capitulo 11: Emisiones de N2O de los suelos gestionados y emisiones de CO2 derivadas de la aplicación de cal y urea. . Directrices del IPCC de 2006 para los inventarios nacionales de gases de efecto invernadero. Editorial IGES, Japón 425:1–56
- Sanchez N, Ruiz R, Hacker V, Cobo M (2020b) Impact of bioethanol impurities on steam reforming for hydrogen production. A review IJHE 45:11923–11942
- Authors
- Parascanu, M. M., Sanchez, N., Sandoval-Salas, F., Carreto, C. M., Soreanu, G., & Sanchez-Silva, L.
- Affiliations
- Tecnológico Nacional de México (MX)
- Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iași (RO)
- Venue
- Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Published
- 2021-07-24
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 45
- Pages
- 64374-64393
- ISSN
- 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
- 1614-7499
- PMC
- PMC8610961
- OpenAlex
- W3185682460
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Environmental Science and Pollution Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Intellectum (Universidad de La Sabana) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- TECNALIA Publications (Fundación TECNALIA Research & Innovation) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- RUIdeRA - Institutional University Repository (University of Castilla-La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Greater South Information System
- Funders
- Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (2016 / 14100)
- Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (SBPLY/17/180501/000238)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
- Keywords
- bioethanol production, sugarcane molasses, feedstock comparison, environmental impact, economic feasibility, renewable energy, fertilizer and pesticide use, emissions, Mexico
- MeSH terms
- Fermentation, Molasses, Agave, Saccharum, Renewable Energy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
