lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e10

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Editorial

Sustainability engineering for the future

Keywords:SustainabilityFuturistic engineeringAssessment of transition to sustainablesocietiesSocial improvementsEconomics for sustainable societiesGovernmental policies for sustainablesocieties

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.0130959-6526/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This Special Volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production focuses on the “Sustainability Engineeringfor the Future”. It highlights the roles of present and future engineers and provides guidelines andinsights on how sustainability can be embedded systematically into all dimensions of engineering.Gone are the days when engineers only focus on technical and economic feasibility of a systemdesign. The challenges of global warming brought about by widespread environmental pollution,resource depletion, rising human population, and multiple threats to food, water and energy se-curities require a paradigm shift in engineering thinking and ways to find and test solutions. Theevolving engineering paradigm increasingly calls for engineers to consider the whole spectrum ofsustainability i.e. from the economic, environmental, social and time dimensions. A selection ofpapers presented in the 6th International Conference of Process Systems Engineering Asia (PSEAsia) held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 25th to 27th June 2013 is included in this SpecialVolume.The papers in this volume focus upon:

(i) Important considerations for the planning and development of sustainable products;(ii) Models and methods designed to support sustainable planning and management;(iii) Effective sustainability assessment tools and the needs for new ones;(iv) New approaches for improved resource management;(v) Illustrative future, sustainable technologies;(vi) Ways policies will play significant roles in promoting implementation of sustainable

engineering approaches.

The collection of papers as designed to provide guidelines for present and future engineers,researchers, academicians and policy makers for ways to improve current and future trends inengineering to help catalyse the transition to truly sustainable societies with improved qualityof life.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘Engineers of the future,’ will face bigger and more demandingchallenges. Whereas, ‘engineers of the past,’ mainly focussedupon the technical and economic feasibilities of systems design,‘engineers of the future,’ will have the responsibility to addressthe entire spectrum of sustainability aspects, including theeconomic, environmental, social and multi-generational dimen-sions. Engineers, together with other members of society muchincreasingly address the rapidly evolving challenges of globalwarming are causing or will cause in areas of widespread envi-ronmental pollution, resource depletion, rising human popula-tions, and increasingly severe threats of food, water and energysecurities.

These are some of the urgently needed dimensions for trans-forming the engineering profession onto a much more proactive,holistic and dynamic profession, which goes far beyond what it ispresently. Consequently, instead of only focussing upon the

design or improvement of a product or process, the paradigmfor ‘sustainable engineering’ requires dynamic, holistic, integra-tive analyses of present and future product life cycles, entire sup-ply chains and the eco-systems upon which truly sustainablesocieties are totally dependent. Consequently, ‘Engineers of thefuture,’ have to be more innovative, creative and engaged inseeking to ensure that the products/processes/systems theydesign and use will enhance present and future sustainable soci-etal lifestyles.

More than ten years ago, Bakshi and Fiksel (2003) already pre-sented the following framework for engineers who wish tocontribute positively toward societal sustainability:

“A sustainable product or process is one that constrains resourceconsumption and waste generation to an acceptable level, makes apositive contribution to the satisfaction of human needs, and pro-vides enduring economic value to the business enterprise.”

Bakshi and Fiksel (2003).

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e102

This and related statements clearly imply the need for more ho-listic, integrative and preventative approaches to societal evolution.There are many issues, which present and future engineers have toconsider. In this Special Volume, the following needs for change areaddressed:

(i) What are the main issues to be considered during thedevelopment of a sustainable product, process or system?

(ii) What are the barriers to incorporation and implementationof sustainability into engineering, in reality?

(iii) What are the roles for governments in promoting and sup-porting the transition to truly sustainable engineering?

(iv) What are effective and efficient ways to develop test andapply methods, which are simpler, easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret, so that they are utilized effectively for effecting‘real’ improvements on the journey toward more sustainablesocieties?

(v) How can information technologies be harnessed to help tosupport and to accelerate the transition to more sustainablesocieties?

(vi) How can ‘truly sustainable resource management,’ be inte-grated into planning and implementation of sustainable so-cietal development plans?

(vii) What should engineering education and research focus uponso as to help to prepare future engineers who are able to helpsocieties become sustainable?

The selected papers from the 6th International Conference onProcess Systems Engineering Asia (PSE Asia) held in Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, June25e27, 2013are included in this special volume topro-vide guidelines on how sustainability can be more effectivelyembedded into engineering courses, curricula and practices so that‘real progress’ can and will be made toward sustainable societies.

The PSE Asia conference theme, “Engineering Sustainable Pro-cess Systems”, brought together more than 300 engineers, scien-tists, researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and educators frommore than 30 countries from six continents. They discussed the ur-gent societal challenges and planned ways to help to ensure secu-rity of food, energy, water and environmental sustainability. Theyalso focussed upon the urgent need for engineers to catalyse ‘realchanges’ in ways of preventing and solving the societal problemsof the present and those that are anticipated in the future.

The articles of this Special Volume include three, sustainabilityorientated, contributions selected to expand its scope beyond thepapers presented at the conference.

2. An overview of papers in this Special Volume

The future sustainability engineering directions addressed inthis Special Volume are divided into the following six categorisesof papers:

(i) The first group discusses the important considerations forthe development of more sustainable products.

(ii) The second group focuses on various models and methods,which have been developed to aid sustainable planning andmanagement. Various examples for regional and technolog-ical planning are illustrated.

(iii) The third group provides a comprehensive assessment of thesustainability assessment tools and highlights the needs fornew tools for the future.

(iv) The fourth group addresses how improved resource man-agement must be incorporated into truly sustainable societaldevelopment.

(v) The fifth group provides examples of future, more sustain-able technologies.

(vi) The last group provides a review of ways policies can/shouldplay pivotal roles in promoting implementation of sustain-able and holistic engineering approaches to help make thetransition to sustainable societies.

2.1. Sustainable production

The first paper of this group is titled, “Review of evolution,technology and sustainability assessment of biofuel production,”by Liew, Hassim and Ng from Malaysia (Liew et al., 2014). The au-thors reviewed the evolution, technology and sustainabilityassessment of biofuel production. Biofuels are seen as potentiallyvaluable energy sources to replace fossil fuels since they arerenewable and can help to reduce the societal carbon footprint.However the nitrogen footprint of such sources has to also beconsidered (�Cu�cek at al., 2013). Biofuels have evolved from thefirst to the fourth generation. Different technologies are neededand are used for each generation of bio-fuels as summarized inthe following paragraph:

a. The first generation of biofuels are primarily derived from foodcrops and are mainly used to produce biodiesel and bioethanol.The technologies involved in their production are based upontrans-esterification for biodiesel production and fermentationfor bioethanol production.

b. The second-generation biofuels are based on lignocellulosicbiomass and the biomass conversion technologies involvethermochemical and biological processes.

c. The third generation biofuels are or will be mainly derived fromalgae or microalgae. Algae are easy to produce since they do notrequire extensive land areas; therefore, they do not compete forland needed for producing human food and animal feed.Nevertheless, the efficiency of algal harvesting and extractiontechnologies are currently inadequate to achieve economicviability, especially within the current, heavily subsidized, fossilcarbon-oriented societies.

d. The fourth generation biofuels will be fossil carbon-negativebiofuel. The crops will be genetically modified to be able toabsorbmore CO2. The biomass resulting from the crops will thenbe converted into efficient and clean fuels such as bio-gasolineor bio-hydrogen. Any CO2 generation will be captured and se-questrated. However, research on generation of these types ofbiofuels is still very new and limited.

There are strengths and weaknesses in all four types of biofuels,which require much more research to improve the technical, envi-ronmental, economic and social impacts.

The economic, environmental and social aspects must bemuch more adequately assessed for their potential to contributeto ‘sustainable’ biofuels production. Techno-economic analyseshave been performed under various scenarios affecting biofuelproduction e.g. oil prices, extreme weather, variation in sub-sidies, changes of governmental policies, new technologies,new social values, etc. It was found that the main economic bar-riers for biofuel commercialisation are the high capital and feed-stock costs, among other factors. Liew et al. (2014) reviewedsafety, health and environmental (SHE) assessment tools for bio-fuel production. They concluded that the majority of the studieswere focused on the environment, while fewer addressed thesafety and health dimensions. It was believed that biofuels couldpotentially help to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and theirconsequent effects. The authors highlighted the need for a

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e10 3

holistic assessment, which addresses all SHE aspects. For socialimpact assessment, they predicted that biofuel developmentcan lead to higher income, and can enhance the creation ofjobs in the rural areas with the aid of proper agro-environmental policies, which promote a balanced approach forproduction of biofuels while ensuring food security andecosystem sustainability.

The authors reviewed the typical frameworks for productionpathway assessment. Production pathway assessment involvespathway screening to select the best configuration of processesand technologies, which fulfil the requirements for the conversionof raw materials into the desired products while promoting sus-tainable societal development. The authors concluded that becausethere are diverse methodologies for production pathway assess-ment, much work must be done on standardization so that themethods can be applied within an extended set of applicationframeworks.

The second paper of this group, is titled, “Issues of social accep-tance on biofuel development” by Chin, Choong andWan Alwi fromMalaysia (Chin et al., 2014). Aside from technical and economicfeasibility of Renewable Energy (RE), social acceptance is also animportant aspect that must be considered. Failure to address socialacceptance can hinder themarket adoption of RE. Because there aretoo few studies on social acceptance related to RE, the authors urgethat much more should be done in these and on closely relateddimensions.

The authors highlighted the problematic issues of social accep-tance for biofuel development in Malaysia. They used theWüstenhagen et al. (2007) Triangular Acceptance Model for theiranalyses. Previously, this model has been mainly applied withinthe wind-power context. This model divides social acceptanceinto three dimensions i.e. socio-political, community and themarkets.

In socio-political acceptance, opinions by the general public,stakeholders (e.g. industry players and environmental protectiongroups) and policy makers were considered. The key issues high-lighted by the authors include food security, genetically modified(GM) crops and the diversity of opinions that oil palm plantationscause forest clearing that negatively affect the Orangutan popula-tions and lead to haze pollution.

Community acceptance mainly deals with the conversionalissues related to siting of factories at the local level. In the bio-fuel context, the collection of feedstock and production of bio-fuel are typically where community acceptance is a problem.Examples of controversies in Malaysia related to this issueinclude the changes of landscape, land use conflicts, the sitingof refinery factories or biofuel production plants and the chang-ing of existing refinery infrastructures. In order to gain commu-nity acceptance, the authors highlight the importance ofensuring active involvement and open channels for the commu-nity to voice their opinions regarding the project prior to place-ment decisions.

Market and consumer acceptance focus on the diffusion of thetechnologies into the market. Consumers typically make choicesbased on fuel economy, refuelling convenience, perceived safetyto both the user and the public, fuel performance, ownershipcost, reduced social and environmental impacts and healthconcern.

The following research trends related to biofuel development inMalaysia were observed by the authors: (1) the shift towards sec-ond generation biofuel production, (2) decentralised biofuel pro-duction, (3) the evolution of private financial procurementsystems. Finally, the authors concluded that the social acceptancecomplement of biofuel development should be given equal impor-tance to the biological, technological and financial dimensions.

Neglecting social acceptance may lead to failure in producing andmarketing biofuels in the long run.

2.2. Sustainable planning & management

The first paper of this group is titled, “Modelling and Optimiza-tion of CO2 Abatement Strategies” by Lee and Hashim fromMalaysia (Lee and Hashim, 2014). Power generation through coalburning is, in many countries, an economical way to produce elec-tricity, but is also the most environmentally damaging due to thehuge CO2, particulate and heavy metal emissions. The key toreducing CO2 emissions includes avoidance or reduction of usage,reuse, minimisation and mitigation (Kleme�s et al., 2012). The au-thors of this paper developed a Mixed Integer Linear Programming(MILP) model to determine the optimal low carbon power genera-tion mix that considers fuel-switching, use of RE sources and Car-bon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology. Five constraintswere imposed on the model i.e. constraints on energy demand, ca-pacity of the existing power plant boilers, availability of RE sup-plies, CO2 emissions from the power plant, and decisions aboutfuel switching and power plant shutdown and operation.

The model was applied in Iskandar Malaysia, a region in Johor,Malaysia. The objectivewas to plan an electricity generation systemthat can fulfil the projected energy demand by 2025 at minimumcost with different fossil CO2 emission reduction targets. Two sce-narios were considered. These included business as usual (BAU)as a baseline, and various CO2 emission reduction targets. For busi-ness as usual, the authors assumed that no CO2 emission target wasset. The case considered three existing coal-based power plants andeight new natural gas power plants without carbon capture andsequestration. GAMS 23.9.4 with solver ILOG CPLEX 10.1 that uti-lises the branch and cut algorithm to solve complex optimisationproblems. The findings revealed that fuel switching to natural gasfor the coal-based boilers and implementation of new natural gaspower plant with carbon capture and sequestration are morefavourable than the existing approach for achieving the increasingCO2 emission reduction targets.

The authors highlighted that the model can also be applied tothe electricity planning systems of other regions or countrieswithmodifications on energy demand data and RE sources. Howev-er, they suggested that future models should also include carboncapture and utilisation (CCU) in the analysis.

The second paper of this group is titled, “Optimal processnetwork for municipal solid waste management in IskandarMalaysia” by Tan, Lee, Hashim, Ho and Lim from Malaysia (Tanet al., 2014a). Municipal solid waste (MSW) is typically just depos-ited in landfills in countries like Malaysia. Landfills require hugeamounts of land and they usually cause extensive environmentaland human health problems due to leachate and methane emis-sions. In a number of countries, especially, countries with morehighly developed municipal solid waste regulations the quantitiesof many types of municipal solid waste are being dramaticallyreduced via source reduction, composting, reuse and recycling.

Municipal solid waste is a potential source of RE because there isa continuous and increasing supply of wastes from domestic, busi-ness and industrial sources due to urban population growth andincreasing per capita consumption of very wasteful products.Municipal solid waste includes wastes such as paper, food wastes,plastics, e-wastes, aluminium, other metals and textiles. For a rela-tively more sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management(MSWM) solution, municipal solid waste can either be convertedto energy or to other value added products. In this paper, the au-thors developed a multi-period MILP model to plan the optimalMSWM for a region. The model can be used to select the best mixof technologies mix optimally recycle materials and energy within

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e104

economic and environmental constraints. The model can also beused to forecast the production of by-products and greenhousegases emissions, as well as facility capacity.

Themodel was implemented for the Iskandar Malaysia region inJohor, Malaysia. Four scenarios were considered i.e. 1) Business asusual (BAU) as a baseline, 2) the waste-to-energy scenario (WTE),3) the waste-to-recycling scenario (WTR), and 4) the mixed tech-nology (MIXTECH) scenario. For business as usual scenario, it wasassumed that the majority municipal solid waste would be land-filled and that only a small portion would be recycled. For waste-to-energy scenario, landfill gas recovery system (LFGRS) and wasteincineration with energy recovery, as well as ‘Feed-in-Tariffs’ wereconsidered. For waste-to-recycling scenario, material recycling fa-cilities (MRF) and organic waste recycling via composting wereconsidered. Mixed technology scenario combined a mix of waste-to-energy and waste-to-recycling technologies. The authorsconcluded that the mix technology scenario gave the most cost-effective solution based on the RE and recycling targets with thefollowing ratio of technologies suggested to be incorporated: land-fill gas recovery system (14%), incineration (3%), recycling (56%),and composting (27%). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the tech-nology selection is greatly influenced by cost of technology, product(RE) targets and GHG emission reduction targets. It would also beinfluenced by governmental policies such as fossil carbon taxes orsome other such stimuli to reduce the fossil carbon footprints.

For future research, the authors suggested the model should beexpanded to include costs of land area for landfill gas recovery andcomposting plants, cost of transporting waste to processing plants,variety of waste treatment technologies and products, environ-mental factors and location of waste treatment plants.

The third paper of this group is titled, “Environmental impactand techno-economic analysis of the coal gasification processwith/without CO2 capture” by Man, Yang, Xiang, Li and Qian fromChina (Man et al., 2014). In countries such as China, coal plays abigger role than oil because of its relative abundance. However,coal-based processes consume more energy and emit more CO2and numerous other environmental and human-health impactingmaterials. In order to overcome the problems of CO2 emissions bycoal-based chemical industry, many CO2 mitigation techniquesare being considered. The authors of this paper investigated theenvironmental and techno-economic performance for coal gasifica-tion processes with CO2 mitigation techniques. Coal gasification is ahighly efficient method for utilisation of coal. Three scenarios wereconsidered: (1) The conventional coal gasification process withoutCO2 capture, (2) The coal gasification process with Carbon Captureand Sequestration (CCS) stored as minerals in geological reservoirs,and (3) The Coal gasificationwith CO2 capture and utilisation (CCU)to produce syngas. The authors’ findings documented that incorpo-ration of CCS slightly reduces the carbon element efficiency (ratio ofeffective carbon compounds of the outlets to effective carbon com-pounds of the inlets), decreased energy efficiency by 28%, reducedemissions 28% CO2 and increased production cost by 10% comparedto conventional coal gasification. For CCU, carbon element effi-ciency was increased by 19%, energy efficiency remained thesame, CO2 emissions were reduced by 45% but production costsincreased 38%. Although CCS is cheaper, the technical and environ-mental advantages of CCU are better. However, due to the high costof CCU technology, this approach can only be economical providedthat carbon taxes higher than 15 USD/t CO2 are introduced and areequally enforced.

The fourth paper of this group is titled, “Unified Pinch Approachfor Targeting of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Systems withMultiple Time Periods and Regions” by Diamante, Tan, Foo, Ng,Aviso and Bandyopadhyay from Philippines, Malaysia and India(Diamante et al., 2014). Captured CO2 can be stored in appropriate

geological reservoirs such as saline aquifers, depleted oil or gas res-ervoirs and inaccessible coal deposits (Davison et al., 2001). How-ever, these geological reservoirs may only be available fromcertain periods of time and have capacity and injection limits.The authors proposed a new Unified Pinch Approach (UPA) basedon graphical and algebraic approaches, which can be used to opti-mally plan multi-period CCS systems with injectivity constraints.The main objective was to minimise the amount of unutilised CO2storage capacity of the reservoirs by appropriately matching CO2sources and sink. The CO2 sources are power plants or energy inten-sive industries, while CO2 sinks are the available reservoirs withinthe proximity of the CO2 sources. The method can determine theamount of carbon, which can be captured from several sourcesand can be used to determine where and when it should be seques-trated. It also provides information if the reservoirs are full and thepossibility of multi-region transfer. The method was tested withtwo case studies for single-region problems and one case studyfor multi-region problems. Many useful insights were gained,which can aid decision-making due to the visualisation aid pro-vided by the Pinch graphical technique.

The fifth paper of this group is titled, “Objective dimensionalityreduction method within multi-objective optimisation consideringTotal Footprints” by �Cu�cek, Kleme�s and Kravanja from Slovenia andHungary (�Cu�cek et al., 2014). In optimising a sustainable system,typically the optimisation involves multiple objectives such as as-pects of natural environment, human health and resources. Howev-er, to solve a multi-objective problem it is difficult and complexbecause it requires much time to obtain the entire solution space.The authors concluded that a criteria dimensionality reductiontechnique is needed to simplify the calculations. They includevery important categories, which help engineers to classify issues,which were previously evaluated orally in the real world. In solvingthis issue, previously, �Cu�cek et al. (2013) has introduced a newobjective dimensionality reduction method called the ‘Representa-tive Objective Method (ROM)’. That method however, can only beused for direct footprint analyses i.e. to address direct burdens ofthe systems in all LCA phases.

In this paper, the ROMmethod was extended to include indirectfootprints i.e. impacts that indirectly unburden or benefit the envi-ronment. The consideration of both types of footprints is called To-tal Footprints. If only direct footprints were considered, manysystems were unsustainable since all LCA phases of every system(i.e. extraction and conversion of resources, material’s production,usage, maintenance, re-use, recycling, energy recovery, and/ordisposal) have impact upon humans and the environment. Byconsidering indirect footprints, which take into account the effectsof product substitution and replacement of toxic with non-toxicsubstances, safer, more sustainable solutions can be obtained. Themodel includes three steps. In the first step, the environmentalfootprints were determined through the process variables matrixand direct and indirect footprints were obtained. In the secondstep, the similarities among the footprints were identified andgroups were formed. In the final step, multi-objective multi-para-metric optimisation was performed using the ε-constraint methodby Haimes et al. (1971).

The model was illustrated by using a biomass energy supplychain case study from �Cu�cek et al. (2010). By using this method,the dimensionalities were reduced from five to three. Since onlyoptimistic scenarios were considered, a more relaxed Pareto solu-tion was obtained in terms of environmental burdens and profits.The solutions provided higher profits and also exhibited rathergood environmental performance. In addition the inaccuracies ofthe dimensionality reduction approach are excluded, becausethey were small when properly applying the proposed measure-ments for identifying similarities amongst footprints. However,

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e10 5

for safety reasons the calculations of the inaccuracies can stillfollow the methodology presented by �Cu�cek et al. (2012).

The final paper of this group is titled, “A supply network optimi-sation with functional clustering of industrial resources” by Ng andLam from Malaysia (Ng and Lam, 2014). This paper introduced anew optimisation model, which clusters industrial facilities basedon their functions for optimum economic potential and efficientresource utilisation in supply chain operations. The integration ofthe industrial cluster concept was designed to promote joint ven-tures in industries and to induce symbiotic practices among facil-ities in the cluster. The use of clusters allows better groupinteractions and more efficient logistical planning.

Themodel was divided in two parts: (1) Supply network synthe-sis and optimisation, and (2) Supply network with functional clus-tering and optimisation. The former model was used as a baselineto compare results with andwithout clusters. Themodel was testedon a case study that consisted of 37 palm oil mills (POMs) withknown locations and capacities. Themain objective was to optimisethe biomass supply network. Four functional clusters were defined:(i) Steam and electricity production, (ii) Fibre production, (iii) Pelletproduction, and (iv) Briquette production. The optimised solutionindicated that centralised processing hub formation was favour-able. The model helped the researchers to successfully determinethe strategic locations of the centralised processing hubs and thefunctional cluster. The formation of these clusters resulted in reduc-tion of transportation by 6.4% and capital costs by 3.6%. It also pro-moted knowledge exchange through business collaboration andattracted investment for development and marketing of high-value products due to the economy-of-scale. For future work, theresearchers proposed to use the model to include footprints andwork on the integration of other resources. In the future, theywill study the use of sensitivity analyses of external ‘distortions’,expansion and symbiotic practises within the cluster.

2.3. Sustainability assessment tools

The first paper of this group is titled, “Integration of Life CycleAssessment Software with Tools for Economic and SustainabilityAnalyses and Process Simulation for Sustainable Process Design”by Kalakul, Malakul, Siemanond and Gani from Denmark andThailand (Kalakul et al., 2014). According to the authors, LCA is arecognised tool for identifying and quantifying environmental im-pacts of products or processes. Based on the International Stand-ardisation Organisation (ISO) directive, ISO140001 (Guiné et al.,2002), LCA consists of four main steps i.e. (1) Goal and scope defi-nition, (2) Life cycle inventory calculation, (3) Life cycle impactassessment (LCIA), and (4) Interpretation.

This paper introduced and tested a new, life cycle assessmentsoftware called LCSoft (Piyarak, 2012) for the evaluation of chemi-calebiochemical processes LCA. The strength of this software is itscapability to be integrated with process design tools to performmulti-objective process evaluations. The software can be integratedwith ECON (Saengwirun, 2011), which is an economic analysis soft-ware; SustainPro (Carvalho et al., 2008), which is sustainable pro-cess design software; and CAPEC DB (Hukkerikar et al., 2012)which is a property database tool.

‘LCSoft’ consists of four main tools:

Tool one is a knowledge management based tool (LCI KB) bywhich the entire LCI database can be easily managed. Data canbe transferred from other open source software e.g. US LCI (USLife Cycle Inventory Database, 2012).Tool two is a chemical characterisation factor estimation tool,which uses property prediction models.

Tool three is a LCA calculator tool, which calculates energyconsumption, carbon footprints and impacts of all the sub-stances emitted from the product and process life cycle.Tool four, is a generic interface which combines ECON, Sus-tainPro and LCSoft to enable economic performance, processsustainability and environmental impacts of a process or prod-uct to be evaluated at the same time.

LCSoft software was tested to evaluate many facets of the bio-ethanol production from cassava rhizome in Thailand. It was foundthat the distillation phase was the main contributor of environ-mental impact and simultaneous saccharification and cofermenta-tion (SSCF) contributed the most towards acidification impact,indicating the need to improve these two systems design and oper-ation. The results were validated by comparing them via theSimaPro 7.1, commercial LCA software. The results provided arobust estimation of the environmental performance as comparedto other LCA software. However, as stated previously, the mainstrengths of LCSoft compared with SimaPro 7.1 is its facility to beeasily integrated with ECON and SustainPro, which enables the re-searchers to simultaneously assess economic performance and pro-cess sustainability of the process design. By transferring the resultsto SustainPro, the sustainability indicators of each open (OP) andclosed (CP) paths can be calculated. The sustainability indicatorscalculated were material value added (MVA) e an indicator that re-flects the value added between the entrance and exit of a givencompound in OPs; energy and waste costs (EWC) e the sum ofthe energy cost and waste cost; total value added (TVA) and the dif-ference of MVA and EWC. It was concluded that the excess flow ofcorn steep liquor should be reduced and cellulose should be recov-ered and recycled. By transferring the results to ECON, it was foundthat the system net present value (NPV) was $95 M with 15% inter-nal rate of return (IRR). The section or equipment which contrib-uted towards the high operating and capital cost could also bedetermined. For future work, the researchers intend to use the soft-ware to enable integration with additional software, which, amongother aspects, will help them to analyse for sensitivity and uncer-tainties in the processes being studied.

The second paper of this group is titled, “Comparison ofmethods assessing environmental friendliness of petrochemicalprocess design” by Abbaszadeh and Hassim from Malaysia(Abbaszadeh and Hassim, 2014). This paper highlighted how engi-neers in chemical process design have begun to shift from onlyfocussing upon techno-economic approaches to decision-makingto design and implement more sustainable approaches, whichalso include environmentally friendly, prevention-oriented con-cepts and tools. Whereas conventional approaches were designedto look for reactive solutions focussed upon “end-of-pipe” pollutioncontrol techniques, engineers are increasingly using proactive stra-tegies that involve pollution prevention or elimination of the prob-lems at the product and process design phases. The authors of thispaper reviewed, compared and classified the following eighteenenvironmental assessment methods for their potential for helpingengineers to improve the design and operation of chemicalprocesses:

1. Waste Reduction Algorithm (WAR) (Cabezas et al., 1999);2. Atmospheric Hazard Index (AHI) (Gunasekera and Edwards,

2003);3. Environmental Hazard Index (EHI) (Cave and Edwards,

1997);4. Inherent Environmental Toxicity Hazard Index (IETH)

(Gunasekera and Edwards, 2006);5. Global Environmental Risk Assessment (GERA) (Archour

et al., 2005);

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e106

6. Hierarchical approach with environmental considerations(Chen and Shonnard, 2004);

7. The Material Balance Environmental Index framework(MBEI) (Torres et al., 2011);

8. Integrated Environmental Index (IEI) (Jia et al., 2004);9. Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solu-

tion (TOPSIS) (Li et al., 2009);10. Design framework for Environmental, Health and Safety

(EHS) assessment (Sugiyama et al., 2006);11. Reaction pathway selection in the light of sustainability

(Zheng et al., 2012);12. Mixed-integer linear model with an environmental objective

(Al-Sharrah et al., 2001);13. Eco-Efficiency analysis of chemical process design (Ouattara

et al., 2012);14. Sustainability assessment of novel chemical processes at

early design (Patel et al., 2012);15. Application of process integration to Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) (El-Halwaghi et al., 2009);16. IDEF0 model with EHS consideration (Hirao et al., 2008)17. Ecological assessment tool box (Grundemann et al., 2011)18. Sustainability root cause analysis (Jayswal et al., 2011).

The eighteen environmental assessment methods for improvingchemical process design were evaluated based upon the followingeight criteria:

(i) Aim: (Sc) Substance-based, (Ps) Process-based(ii) Target stage of process design: (RD) Research and Develop-

ment, (F) Flowsheeting, (B) Basic Engineering, (D) DetailedEngineering

(iii) Considered aspects: (EZ) Environmental Hazards, (EO)Operational Environmental Impact, (ST) Substance Toxicity,(EA) Exposure Assessment, (EHSZ) EHS Hazard, EN) Eco-nomic Profitability Inline With Environmental Consider-ation, (EE) Environmental Impact Of Energy Generation InSystem, (RC) Resource Conservation, (PE) PollutionEmissions.

(iv) Environmental media: (A) Atmospheric, (Aq) Aquatic, (T)Terrestrial

(v) Assessment strategy: (Qn) Quantitative, (Ql) Qualitative(vi) Output: (Qv) Qualitative, (Qt) Quantitative, (S) Semi

quantitative(vii) Approach: (Rr) Relative ranking of alternative processes (FM)

Framework/Model(viii) Target industry: (Petroc) Petrochemical/related plant in-

dustries, (Bio) Bio-based process

The authors concluded that apart from the advantages andcomprehensiveness of the assessment methods, none addressedthe overall aspects of environmental performance of chemical pro-cesses. Each method has its own uniqueness and accuracy due tothe assumptions and information used. Several methods are beingadapted towards automation via computer-aided approaches. Theauthor of the paper concluded that environmental assessmentmethods do not necessarily need to be complex. They can be simpleand comprehensive provided that they focus on a specific stage ofthe design phase. Due to this, the authors suggested a future reviewpaper to evaluate the environmental impact assessment methodfor chemical processes in specific design stages.

2.4. Integrated resource management

The first paper of this group is titled, “Synthesis of a sustainableintegrated ricemill complex” by Lim,Manan, Hashim andWan Alwi

from Malaysia (Lim et al., 2014). Agricultural processes such as ricemilling normally do not fully utilise by-products. Furthermore, theproduction typically requires large amounts of energy. This resultsin rice mills which operate on narrow profit margins. There is aneed for a paradigm shift. By-products from agricultural productioncan actually be converted into value-added products by the millersto increase their profits instead of selling their ‘wasted materials todownstream industries at low prices. For example, broken rice canbe used to produce vermicelli or rice flour, rice bran can be madeinto rice bran oil which is rich in nutrients, and rice husk can bemade into bio oil or converted into energy through a cyclonichusk or cogeneration systemwith the objective to use all of thema-terials for power and steam generation. Themaximumutilisation ofby-products through proper technologies and process selection andscreening, in order to optimize profits and to minimise environ-mental impacts, is where the concept of integrated, resource-efficient (IRE) complex is applicable. The model to design IRE forthe rice mill complex was developed by Lim et al. (2013). However,environmental factors were not considered in the process synthesisstage.

In this paper, the authors proposed a mathematical model,which can assist rice mill planners to design a sustainable and prof-itable IRE, rice mill complex. The key factors considered were:

1. The availability of resources.2. The cost effectiveness of the available technology options.3. The trade-offs between profitability and environmental impact.

Five scenarios were analysed: maximising profit, minimisingglobal warming index, minimising photochemical ozone index,minimising eutrophication index and maximising the degree ofsatisfaction, which is maximising the economic performance whileminimising the environmental performance via the fuzzy optimisa-tion approach. The model was tested by using GAMS software(version 22.9) and by using the CPLEX solver (12.3.0.0). Applicationon a case study revealed a potential profit of USD 3,218,000 withless emissions of harmful pollutants compared to a profit of USD155,000 for a conventional rice mill with a cogeneration system.This is a huge potential increase in profits for rice millers.

The second paper of this group is titled, “Heat integratedresource conservation networks without mixing prior to heatexchanger networks” by Tan, Ng, Foo, El-Halwagi and Samyudiafrom Malaysia and the USA (Tan et al., 2014b). The concept of inte-grated resource conservation networks (RCN) has been widelyresearched by various researchers. The most famous RCN can beclassified into Water, Hydrogen and Property Integration. Themain objective of RCN is to minimise use of fresh resources andresource generation. In the past decades, integrated RCN has beenmore widely used. The two most famous integrated RCN examplesare: (i) Simultaneous energy and water minimisation and (ii)Simultaneous property and energy integration. The method usedby those researchers ranged from Pinch Analysis to the mathemat-ical modelling approach. In their recent publication, the authorspresented a generic model for Heat Integrated Resource Conserva-tion Network (HIRCN) for fixed flow rate problems without anyprior mixing, based on mixed integer non-linear program (MINLP)and the floating pinch concept. The model helped the researchersto successfully minimize cost and optimize the use of fresh re-sources as well as external hot and cold utilities in three casestudies. The model helped the researchers to solve problems withvaried process parameters and multiple properties.

The final paper of this group is titled, “Sustainable EnterpriseResource Planning: Imperatives and Research Directions” by Cho-freh, Goni, Mohamed Shaharoun, Ismail, Kleme�s from Malaysia(Chofreh et al., 2014). Many organisations or enterprises are

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e10 7

realizing the need tomore effectively convey their sustainability in-formation and processes across business functions. Sustainable En-terprise Resource Planning (S-ERP) is integrated sustainabilityinformation system solutions which can be used to collect, inte-grate, automate and monitor sustainability information (Brookset al., 2012). However, according to the author of this paper, thisnew system is still at the stage of introduction. More researchmust be done to spur the development and usage of S-ERP.

The author of this paper reviewed the previous ERP and sustain-ability research. The authors then proposed several research stages,which must be studied in S-ERP. S-ERP research life cycle can bedivided into introduction, growth, maturity and decline stage. Inthe introductory stage, concept research must be done to buildthe foundation and to determine the benefits S-ERP can bring toan organisation. In the growth stage, research in developing properframework and system design to achieve the conceptual objectivesare needed. In the maturity stage, the S-ERP pre-implementation,implementation and post-implementation aspects need to be rein-forced. In the decline stage, research has to be done on the systemextension.

The authors highlighted the need for innovation in S-ERP, by forexample making it into a Cloud S-ERP. A Cloud ERP will providegreater flexibility; it will enhance options for customisation, itwill lower the cost of ERP implementation, will lower the cost ofownership, will provide better integration with emerging technol-ogies and will reduce the required IT skills. Innovations can help toexpand the utility of S-ERP. All of these are potential research areasto be explored by academic researchers.

2.5. Sustainable technologies

The first paper of this group is titled, “Assessment of porous car-bons derived from sustainable palm solid waste for carbon dioxidecapture” by Nasri, Hamza, Ismail, Ahmed and Mohsin fromMalaysia and Nigeria (Nasri et al., 2014). Techniques for CO2 capturefor power plants have mainly focussed upon the use of amineliquid-phase absorption units. However, the method consumeslarge quantities of energy, the solvent is easily degraded and vapor-ised, and the process equipment is quickly corroded (Shafeeyanet al., 2010). Adsorbents such as silica, metal oxides, metal organicframeworks (MOFs), zeolites and activated carbon (AC) are possiblealternatives. However these adsorbents are also expensive, requiremulti-step fabrication procedures, high regeneration temperaturesand have the tendency to degrade significantly in terms of theadsorption capacity after several cycles (Servilla and Fuertes,2011). The use of agricultural wastes to produce bio-char as anadsorbent has been found to be a way to significantly reduce costs.The adsorption efficiency of this bio-char can be further increasedby activating it to enlarge the solid pores. Numerous researchershave found that it is feasible to prepare activated carbon from agri-cultural wastes such as coconut palm shell, coconut shell, palm oilwaste, wild olive cores, coconut coir, sawdust etc. For bio-char pre-pared from palm shells, the adsorption behaviour has been studiedfor SO2, O2, N2, NO2, CH4 and H2S. In this research, the authors stud-ied the CO2 adsorption behaviour of palm kernel shell bio-char(PKC) and activated carbon (PAC). Specifically, the study focusedon the properties, adsorption equilibria, kinetics and mechanismof CO2 adsorption. The adsorption isotherms and kinetic parame-ters were also studied. It was concluded that palm kernel shellhas potential for CO2 adsorption. The adsorption model can besatisfactorily represented by Langmuir and Freundlich isothermswhile the kinetic data can be represented by pseudo-second-order model. However, future work was suggested to furtherimprove the surface area, porosity and surface chemistry in orderto compete with the current amine system.

The second paper of this group is titled, “Optimal sizing ofHybrid Power Systems using Power Pinch Analysis” byMohammadRozali, Wan Alwi, Manan, Kleme�s and Hassan from Malaysia(Mohammad Rozali et al., 2014). Hybrid Power Systems (HPS)generally consists of two or more types of renewable energy gener-ation sources, for example photovoltaic and wind that are com-bined to produce electricity. The energy can be used in both off-grid and on-grid connected systems. When there is a surplus ofelectricity from the RE sources, which cannot be consumed bythe demands, the electricity can be stored or fed into the regionalgrid. When there is an electricity deficit, electricity can be takenfrom the stored energy or from the external electricity supply i.e.from the grid or from a diesel generator. However, the variable pat-terns of renewable energy sources and demands present a majorchallenge for the design of HPS.

The available techniques for HPS design and optimisationinvolve complex simulation and mathematical formulae. Chal-lenges in performing the optimisation processes were related tothe fact that the relevant computer programs are difficult to masterand most potential decision-makers have limited experience withthem.

The Pinch Analysis method has been recently extended to beused to design optimal HPS due to its insight-based visualisationcapability. The method, which is called ‘Power Pinch Analysis(PoPA)’, was first introduced byWan Alwi et al. (2012) to determinethe minimum targets for outsourced electricity as well as for plan-ning the storage capacity. The method has been expanded toinclude energy losses associated with power conversion, transferand storage by Mohammad Rozali et al. (2013). In a recent publica-tion, Mohammad Rozali et al. (2014) has further expanded themethod tomake it possible to evaluate the most suitable renewableenergy generator size for a company which has different RE poten-tials and demand requirements. Themethod yields the optimal HPSsizing with minimum payback periods.

2.6. Policies in engineering sustainability

The paper of this group is titled, “A review of progress in renew-able energies implementation in Gulf Cooperation Council Coun-tries” by Bhutto, Bazmi, Zahedi and Kleme�s from Pakistan, USAandHungary (Bhutto et al., 2014). Oil rich countries such as Bahrain,Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and theUnited Arab Emirates (UAE), which make up the Gulf CooperationCouncil (GCC) normally, have low energy prices, minimum taxationand relatively inexpensive labour (Saif, 2009). This has led to the in-crease of energy-intensive industries such as aluminium, petro-chemical and steel industries opening their branches in thesecountries, leading to 74% increases of energy consumption duringthe period 2000 and 2010 with projections to increase consump-tion approximately 10e15% between 2010 and 2020 (Kinninmont,2010). It was reported by Reiche (2010) that only 0.6% of the globalpopulation lives in the GCC countries but the region contributes2.4% of the GHG emissions. According to the authors, the GCC coun-tries are ranked among the top 25 countries responsible for highestper capita CO2 emissions.

In order for GCC countries to reduce their carbon emissionsresulting from non-renewable energy consumption and simulta-neously to increase their economic diversity, there is an urgentneed for them to move to the development and adoption of tech-nologies and management strategies related to alternative energy,energy efficiency and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).This will diversify their energy supply mix towards long-term en-ergy security, increase their oil and gas revenue potential, createsopportunities for capital investment and high-value jobs from thevarious RE value chain.

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e108

In this paper, the authors have: (1) investigated the benefits offunding and investing in RE projects, (2) reviewed publicationsrelated to RE since 2005, (3) discussed the causes of electricity de-mand increases, (4) discussed power generation and reservessharing through power grids, (5) addressed the environmentalvulnerability, (6) explored potential sources and development ofRE, and (7) debated the strategies and policies to promote anddevelop RE for the GCC countries.

The authors concluded that photovoltaic andwind systems havehuge potentials in the GCC countries due to their strategic locationand climatic conditions. The GCC countries need to create specificlegislation, subsidies for investment and rational tariffs, whichcan simultaneously promote both RE and foreign investment inthe energy-intensive sectors. Implementation policies goals,formalized networks and regional coordination on RE must alsobe enhanced. Capacity building to train and support new genera-tions on RE technologists should be one of the main strategies fornational planning as it can create a new RE niche and competitivetechnologies suited for their climatic conditions. The authorsconcluded that the GCC countries have begun to adopt a morepro-active approach in RE on their journey to become moresustainable.

3. Conclusions and contributions to the state-of-the-art ofthe papers in this Special Volume

This article reviewed the essence of sixteen selected papers pre-sented during the PSE Asia 2013 and several other papers related tothis topic. It provided an overview of the current focus of sustain-ability engineering research, ranging from the design, engineeringand planning of a single product, to the planning and engineeringof resource supply chains at the enterprise and regional levels.

As businesses cope with new challenges beyond profitability,sustainability engineering is expected to be the new corporate-world order. Enterprises, industries and governments are expectedto embrace the sustainable business models and integrate sustain-ability best practices into their business strategies and operations.Sustainability engineering shall need to consider aspects of plan-ning, assessment and management that embed economy, technol-ogy, environment, policy and social dimensions to aid decision-making. The need to solve more complex, multi-dimensional andlarger-scale systems calls for future engineers to be equippedwith the skills to utilise sophisticated modelling and computer-aided tools to perform multi-criteria or multi-objective optimisa-tions apart from visualisation tools to enhance understanding.

In order to remain competitive, enterprises and businesses needto keep up-to-date with the future directions of sustainability engi-neering. The future emphases will be on the adoption of detailedsustainability impact studies and analyses using assessment toolssuch as life cycle, total footprints, cleaner production, supply chainand production path analysis. Many new technologies are movingtowards integrated resource management, symbiosis system,hybrid system, waste-to-resources technologies and efficiencyimprovement of current technologies.

An important point to note is that sustainability engineeringshould not only be technology-oriented, but should also consider,the policy, social, ecological and trans-generational dimensions.The social acceptance of each technology should be studied priorto implementation in order to ensure its success during launching.The acceptance should consider three dimensions i.e. socio-political, community, market and consumer. The success of sustain-able technology adoption also critically hinges upon the role of thegovernment and policy makers. While engineers and technologistsmay develop new tools and technologies to engineer sustainabilitye see e.g. Kleme�s and Varbanov (2013), it is a major challenge for

novel technologies to penetrate the market. The most desirable op-tion is to manage without strong subsidies from the governmentthrough the enactment of appropriate policies, incentives and sup-port systems (e.g. public/private funding, minimising subsidiesfrom tax payers money, capacity building and regionalcoordination).

Multidisciplinary collaboration among the various stakeholdersof the society will be a vital element of the future sustainable prod-ucts/processes/systems. ‘Engineers of the future,’ must therefore,learn to adapt as well as to engage the society-at-large to ensurethe ultimate success of sustainability engineering for helping soci-eties to become increasingly sustainable in all ways.

Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief of theJournal of Cleaner Production, Prof. Donald Huisingh, who has dedi-cated this Special Volume for the PSE Asia 2013 conference pro-ceedings. We also would like to thank all who contributed in thedevelopment of this Special Volume from preparation, reviewingto publishing. Twenty manuscripts were selected for peer reviewand sixteen papers were accepted. The Special Volume editorswish to give our heartfelt gratitude to the following thirty re-viewers from eighteen affiliations throughout the world for theirwisdom, dedication and time:

Alexandra Elena Bonet Ruiz, University Politehnica of Bucharest,Romania.

Anja Kostev�sek, University of Pannonia, Hungary.Chew Tin Lee, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.Dominic Chwan Yee Foo, Nottingham University, Malaysia.Donald Huisingh, University of Tennessee, United States.Douglas Lambert, The Ohio State University, United States.Gopal Chandra Sahu, India.Gyu-Bong Lee, KITECH, Republic of Korea.Haslenda Hashim, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.Hella Tokos, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan.Heriberto Cabezas, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, United States.Hon Loong Lam, University of Nottingham, Malaysia.Igor Bulatov, The University of Manchester, United Kingdom.Ji�rí Jaromír Kleme�s, University of Pannonia, Hungary.Ji�rí Kropá�c, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic.Jui-Yuan Lee, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.Karoly Nagy, Hungary.Lidija �Cu�cek, University of Maribor, Slovenia.Michael Narodoslawsky, Graz University of Technology, Austria.Michael Richard Walter Walmsley, University of Waikato, New

Zealand.Ming-Lang Tseng, Lunghwa University of Science & Technology,

Taiwan.Nel R Hofstra R., Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands.Peng Yen Liew, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.Peter Glavi�c, University of Maribor, Slovenia.Peter Sabev Varbanov, University of Pannonia, Hungary.Raymond R. Tan, De La Salle University, Phillipines.Shuichi Ashina, National Institute for Environmental Studies,

Japan.Siyu Yang, South China University of Technology, China.Vasile Lavric, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania.Zdravko Kravanja, University of Maribor, Slovenia.Without their support and help, this Special Volume would not

have been finalised and published on time.We also would like to acknowledge UTM Distinguished Visiting

Professor Scheme for supporting Prof Dr Ji�rí Jaromír Kleme�s in his

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e10 9

research stay in Malaysia for one month to coordinate the prepara-tion of this Special Volume.

References

6th International Conference of Process Systems Engineering Asia (PSE Asia 2013).Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25 to 27 June 2013. www.cheme.utm.my/pseasia2013(accessed 10.10.13.).

Abbaszadeh, S., Hassim, M.H., 2014. Comparison of methods assessing environ-mental friendliness of petrochemical process design. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 110e117.

Al-Sharrah, G.K., Alatiqi, I., Elkamel, A., Alper, E., 2001. Planning an integrated petro-chemical industry with an environmental objective. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40,2013e2111.

Archour, M.H., Haroun, A.E., Schult, C.J., Gasem, K.A.M., 2005. A new method toassess the environmental risk of a chemical process. Chem. Eng. Process 44(8), 901e909.

Bakshi, Bhavik R., Fiksel, Joseph, 2003. The quest for sustainability: challenges forprocess systems engineering. AIChE J. 49 (6), 1350e1358.

Bhutto, A.W., Bazmi, A.A., Zahedi, G., Kleme�s, J.J., 2014. A review of progress inrenewable energies implementation in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. J.Clean. Prod. 71, 168e180.

Brooks, S., Wang, X., Sarker, S., 2012. In: vom Brocke, J., et al. (Eds.), UnpackingGreen IS: a Review of the Existing Literature and Directions for the Future,Green Business Process Management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Ger-many, pp. 15e37.

Cabezas, H., Bare, J.C., Mallick, S.K., 1999. Pollution prevention with chemical pro-cess simulators: the generalized waste reduction (WAR) algorithm-full version.Comput. Chem. Eng. 23, 623e634.

Carvalho, A., Gani, R., Matos, H., 2008. Design of sustainable chemical processes:systematic retrofit analysis generation and evaluation of alternatives. ProcessSaf. Environ. Prot. 86, 328e346.

Cave, S.R., Edwards, D.W., 1997. Chemical process route selection based in assess-ment of inherent environmental hazard. Comput. Chem. Eng. 21, S965eS970.

Chen, H., Shonnard, D.R., 2004. Systematic framework for environmentallyconscious chemical process design: early and detailed design stages. Ind. Eng.Chem. Res. 43, 535e552.

Chin, H.C., Choong, W.W., Wan Alwi, S.R., Mohammed, A.H., 2014. Issues of socialacceptance on biofuel development. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 30e39.

Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Shaharoun, A.M., Ismail, S., Kleme�s, J.J., 2014. Sustainableenterprise resource planning: imperatives and research directions. J. Clean.Prod. 71, 139e147.

�Cu�cek, L., Lam, H., Kleme�s, J., Varbanov, P., Kravanja, Z., 2010. Synthesis of regionalnetworks for the supply of energy and bio products. Clean. Technol. Environ.Policy 12, 635e645.

�Cu�cek, L., Kleme�s, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. Carbon and nitrogen trade-offs in biomassEnergy production. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 14 (3), 389e397.

�Cu�cek, L., Kleme�s, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., Kravanja, Z., 2013. Dealing with high-dimensionality of criteria in multi-objective optimization of biomass energysupply network. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 7223e7239.

�Cu�cek, L., Kleme�s, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2014. Objective dimensionality reduction methodwithin multi-objective optimisation considering total footprints. J. Clean. Prod.71, 75e86.

Davison, J., Freund, P., Smith, A., 2001. Putting Carbon Back into the Ground. Inter-national Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Cheltenham, UK.

Diamante, J.A.R., Tan, R.R., Foo, D.C.Y., Ng, D.K.S., Aviso, K.B., Bandyopadhyay, S.,2014. Unified pinch approach for targeting of carbon capture and storage(CCS) systems with multiple time periods and regions. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 67e74.

El-Halwaghi, M., Lovelady, E.M., Abdel-Wahab, A., Linke, P., Alfadala, H.E., 2009.Apply process integration to environmental impact assessment. Chem. Eng.Prog., 36e42.

Grundemann, L., Kuschnerow, J.C., Brinkmann, T., Scholl, S., 2011. Using ecologicalassessment during the conceptual design phase of chemical processes e acase study. In: Hesselbach, J., Herrmann, C. (Eds.), Glocalized Solutions for Sus-tainability in Manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 617e622.

Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A. de, Oers, L.van, Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., Bruijn, H. de, Duin, R.van, Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

Gunasekera, M.Y., Edwards, D.W., 2003. Estimating the environmental impact ofcatastrophic chemical release to the atmospheric and index method for rankingalternative chemical process route. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 81 (6), 463e474.

Gunasekera, M.Y., Edwards, D.W., 2006. Chemical process route selection basedupon the potential toxic impact on the aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric en-vironments. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 19, 60e69.

Haimes, Y.Y., Lasdon, L.S., Wismer, D.A., 1971. On a Bicriterion Formulation ofthe Problems of Integrated System Identification and System Optimiza-tion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC-1,pp. 296e297.

Hirao, M., Sugiyama, H., Fischer, U., Hungerbühler, K., 2008. IDEFO activity model-ling for integrated process design considering environmental, health and safety(EHS) aspects. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 25, 1065e1070.

Hukkerikar, A.S., Kalakul, S., Sarup, B., Young, D.M., Sin, G., Gani, R., 2012. Estimationof environment-related properties of chemicals for design of sustainable pro-cesses: development of group-contributionþ (GCþ441) property models anduncertainty analysis. Chem. Informat. Model. 56, 2823e2839.

Jayswal, A., Li, X., Zanwar, A., Lou, H.H., Huang, Y., 2011. A sustainability root causeanalysis methodology and its application. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35, 2786e2798.

Jia, X., Han, F.Y., Tan, X.S., 2004. Integrated environmental performance assessmentof chemical processes. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 23, 243e247.

Kalakul, S., Malakul, P., Siemanond, K., Gani, R., 2014. Integration of life cycle assess-ment software with tools for economic and sustainability analyses and processsimulation for sustainable process design. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 98e109.

Kinninmont, J., 2010. The GCC in 2020: Resources for the Future. Economist Intelli-gence Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kleme�s, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., 2013. Process intensification and integration: an assess-ment, 2013. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (3), 417e422.

Kleme�s, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., Huisingh, D., 2012. Recent cleaner production advancesin process monitoring and optimisation. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 1e8.

Lee, M.Y., Hashim, H., 2014. Modelling and optimization of CO2 abatement strate-gies. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 40e47.

Li, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Suzuki, K., 2009. Environmentally conscious design ofchemical processes and products: multi-optimization method. Chem. Eng.Res. Des. 87, 233e243.

Liew, W.H., Hassim, M.H., Ng, D.K.S., 2014. Review of evolution, technology and sus-tainability assessment of biofuel production. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 11e29.

Lim, J.S., Abdul Manan, Z., Hashim, H., Wan Alwi, S.R., 2013. Towards an integrated,resource-efficient rice mill complex. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 75, 41e51.

Lim, J.S., Manan, Z.A., Hashim, H., Wan Alwi, S.R., 2014. Synthesis of a sustainableintegrated rice mill complex. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 118e127.

Man, T., Yang, S., Xiang, D.M., Li, X., Qian, Y., 2014. Environmental impact andtechno-economic analysis of the coal gasification process with/without CO2capture. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 59e66.

Mohammad Rozali, N.E., Wan Alwi, S.R., Abdul Manan, Z., Kleme�s, J.J., Hassan, M.Y.,2013. Process integration of hybrid power systems with energy losses consider-ations. Energy 55, 38e45.

Mohammad Rozali, N.W., Wan Alwi, S.R., Manan, Z.A., Kleme�s, J.J., Hassan, M.Y.,2014. Optimal sizing of hybrid power systems using power pinch analysis. J.Clean. Prod. 71, 158e167.

Nasri, N.S., Hamza, U.D., Ismail, S.N., Ahmed, M.M., Mohsin, R., 2014. Assessment ofporous carbons derived from sustainable palm solid waste for carbon dioxidecapture. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 148e157.

Ng, W.P.Q., Lam, H.L., 2014. A supply network optimisation with functional clus-tering of industrial resources. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 87e97.

Ouattara, A., Luc, P., Catherine, A.P., Serge, D., Philippe, B., Benjamin, Y., 2012. Eco-nomic and environmental strategies for process design. Comput. Chem. Eng.36, 174e188.

Patel, A.D., Meesters, K., Uil, H.D., Jong, E.D., Blok, K., Patel, M.K., 2012. Sustainabilityassessment of novel chemical processes at early stage: application to biobasedprocesses. Energ. Environ. Sci. 5, 8430e8444.

Piyarak, S., 2012. Development of Software for Life Cycle Assessment. M.S. thesis.The Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,Thailand.

PRé Consultants, SimaPro LCA Software. www.pre.nl/simapro (accessed 11.02.12.).Reiche, D., 2010. Energy Policies of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countriesepos-

sibilities and limitations of ecological modernization in rentier states. EnergyPolicy 38, 2395e2403.

Saengwirun, P., 2011. Cost Calculations and Economic Analysis. MSc Dissertation.The Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,Thailand.

Saif, I., 2009. The Oil Boom in the GCC Countries, 2002e2008: Old Challenges,Changing Dynamics. The Carnegie Middle East Center, Washington, USA.

Servilla, M., Fuertes, A.B., 2011. Sustainable porous carbons with a superior perfor-mance for CO2 capture. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 1765e1771.

Shafeeyan, M.S., Wan Daud, W.M., Houshmand, A., Shamiri, A., 2010. Review on sur-face modification of activated carbon for carbon dioxide adsorption. J. Anal.Appl. Pyrolysis 89, 143e151.

Sugiyama, H., Fischer, U., Hirao, M., Hungerbuhler, K., 2006. A chemical processdesign framework including different stages of environmental, health andsafety (EHS) assessment. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 21, 1021e1026.

Tan, S.T., Lee, C.T., Hashim, H., Ho, W.S., Lim, J.S., 2014a. Optimal process network formunicipal solid waste management in Iskandar Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 48e58.

Tan, Y.L., Ng, D.K.S., Foo, D.C.Y., El-Halwagi, M.M., Samyudi, Y., 2014b. Heat inte-grated resource conservation networks without mixing prior to heat exchangernetworks. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 128e138.

Torres, C.M., Gadalla, M.A., Mateo-sanz, J.M., Esteller, L.J., 2011. Evaluation tool forthe environmental design of chemical processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50,13466e13477.

U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database, 2012. National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL). <www.nrel.gov/lci/> (accessed 19.08.12.).

Wan Alwi, S.R., Mohammad Rozali, N.E., Abdul-Manan, Z., Kleme�s, J.J., 2012. Aprocess integration targeting method for hybrid power systems. Energy 44,6e10.

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Burer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable en-ergy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 (5), 2683e2691.

Editorial / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 1e1010

Zheng, K., Lou, H.H., Gangadharan, P., Kanchi, K., 2012. Incorporating sustainabilityinto the conceptual design of chemical process-reaction route selection. Ind.Eng. Chem. Res. 51, 9300e9309.

Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi, Zainuddin Abdul MananProcess Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Faculty of Chemical

Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru,Malaysia

E-mail addresses: shasha@cheme.utm.my (S.R. Wan Alwi),zain@cheme.utm.my (Z.A. Manan).

Ji�rí Jaromír Kleme�s*

Centre for Process Integration and Intensification e CPI2, ResearchInstitute of Chemical and Process Engineering e M}UKI, Faculty of

Information Technology, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u. 10, H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary

Donald HuisinghThe Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, University ofTennessee, Knoxville, 311, Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN

37996-4134, USAE-mail address: donaldhuisingh@comcast.net.

*Corresponding author.E-mail address: klemes@cpi.uni-pannon.hu (J.J. Kleme�s).

4 March 2014Available online 25 March 2014