Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Pathways: HEFA, ATJ, and FT.

The aviation sector is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for approximately 2-3% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Okolie et al., 2023). As air travel continues to grow, the urgency to mitigate its environmental impact has intensified. Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) have emerged as a critical solution to address the aviation industry’s carbon footprint. SAFs are derived from renewable resources and are designed to be compatible with existing aircraft and infrastructure, offering a pathway to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions significantly compared to conventional fossil fuels (Kohse-Höinghaus, 2023).

The importance of SAFs lies not only in their potential to lower emissions but also in their ability to enhance energy security and promote economic growth through the development of new technologies and industries (Wang et al., 2024). The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set ambitious targets for the aviation sector, aiming for a 50% reduction in net aviation emissions by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, with SAFs playing a pivotal role in achieving these goals (Dray et al., 2022).

This analysis focuses on three prominent pathways for producing SAFs: Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ), and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. Each pathway presents unique characteristics in terms of GHG emissions, production scalability, and economic feasibility.

• HEFA Pathway: The HEFA process converts fats and oils into jet fuel through hydrogenation. It is currently the most commercially viable SAF pathway, with the potential for significant GHG reductions, particularly when utilizing waste feedstocks (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). However, scalability is limited by the availability of suitable feedstocks and the high costs associated with production (Wang et al., 2024).
• ATJ Pathway: The ATJ process involves converting alcohols, such as ethanol, into jet fuel. While it offers a promising alternative, the economic feasibility of ATJ is currently challenged by high production costs and the need for further technological advancements (Ansell, 2023). Nevertheless, ATJ has the potential to utilize a wide range of feedstocks, which could enhance its scalability (Detsios et al., 2023).
• FT Pathway: The FT synthesis converts syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) into liquid hydrocarbons. This pathway can achieve substantial GHG reductions, but it requires significant investment in infrastructure and technology to be economically viable (Saad et al., 2024). The scalability of FT fuels is promising, particularly when integrated with existing natural gas or biomass facilities (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).

Overview of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Pathways

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) are essential for reducing the carbon footprint of the aviation industry. Various production pathways have been developed, each with unique characteristics, feedstocks, and processes. This section provides an overview of three prominent SAF pathways: Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ), and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis.

Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA)

Description of the HEFA Process: The HEFA process involves the hydrogenation of fats and oils to produce jet fuel. This method converts triglycerides, which are the main components of fats and oils, into hydrocarbons suitable for aviation fuel. The process typically includes deoxygenation, where oxygen is removed from the feedstock, followed by hydrocracking to produce a range of hydrocarbon products that meet the specifications for jet fuel (Abrantes et al., 2021). HEFA is recognized for its high technology readiness level and is currently the most commercially viable SAF pathway.

Common Feedstocks Used: HEFA primarily utilizes feedstocks such as used cooking oils, animal fats, and other lipid sources. These feedstocks are advantageous as they are often waste products, thus contributing to sustainability by reducing waste and utilizing resources that would otherwise be discarded (Kohse-Höinghaus, 2023). The use of waste oils and fats not only enhances the sustainability profile of HEFA but also helps mitigate competition with food crops for land and resources.

Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ)

Description of the ATJ Process: The ATJ process converts alcohols, typically derived from biomass, into jet fuel. This process involves several steps, including fermentation to produce alcohols (such as ethanol or butanol), followed by dehydration and catalytic conversion to produce jet fuel components. The ATJ pathway is notable for its flexibility in feedstock utilization, allowing for a variety of biomass sources to be converted into aviation fuel (Ansell, 2023).

Common Feedstocks Used: Common feedstocks for the ATJ process include sugars, starches, and lignocellulosic biomass. These feedstocks can be derived from agricultural residues, dedicated energy crops, or waste materials, making ATJ a versatile option for sustainable fuel production (Goh et al., 2022). The ability to use a wide range of feedstocks enhances the scalability and sustainability of the ATJ pathway.

Fischer-Tropsch (FT)

Description of the FT Process: The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is a well-established method for converting syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) into liquid hydrocarbons. In the context of aviation fuels, FT processes can produce synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) that meets aviation fuel specifications. The FT process typically involves gasification of biomass or fossil fuels to produce syngas, followed by catalytic conversion to produce liquid hydrocarbons (Kohse-Höinghaus, 2023).

Common Feedstocks Used: FT synthesis can utilize a variety of feedstocks, including biomass, natural gas, and even coal. Biomass feedstocks can be processed through gasification to generate syngas, while natural gas can be converted directly into syngas through reforming processes. The flexibility in feedstock choice allows for the integration of FT processes into existing energy systems and enhances the potential for carbon-neutral fuel production (Ansell, 2023).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) pathways is critical for understanding their environmental impact and potential for mitigating climate change. This section provides a comparative analysis of life cycle GHG emissions for three prominent SAF production pathways: Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ), and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. Additionally, it discusses the regulatory standards and certifications that influence these emissions.

Emission Profiles of Each Pathway

Comparative Analysis of Life Cycle GHG Emissions:

The life cycle GHG emissions for each SAF pathway vary significantly based on the feedstock used and the production methods employed.

• HEFA Pathway: The HEFA process typically results in GHG emissions ranging from 16.5 to 47 g CO2-eq/MJ, depending on the feedstock (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The emissions are influenced by the type of oil used; for instance, HEFA derived from waste oils generally has lower emissions compared to those derived from vegetable oils due to the latter’s associated agricultural emissions (Detsios et al., 2023). The production of hydrogen, which is essential for the hydrotreatment process, also contributes to the overall emissions, particularly when derived from fossil fuels (Undavalli et al., 2023).
• ATJ Pathway: The ATJ process exhibits a broader range of GHG emissions, from −27.0 to 117.5 g CO2-eq/MJ (Song et al., 2024). The variability is largely attributed to the type of feedstock used, such as sugarcane, corn grain, or switchgrass. The biochemical processes involved in converting alcohols to jet fuel are energy-intensive, leading to higher emissions compared to HEFA and FT pathways (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).
• FT Pathway: The FT synthesis pathway generally shows the lowest GHG emissions, with values ranging from −1.6 to 18.2 g CO2-eq/MJ  (Song et al., 2024). This pathway benefits from the use of lignocellulosic feedstocks, which can sequester carbon during growth, thus offsetting emissions during the conversion process. The efficiency of the gasification and FT processes also plays a significant role in minimizing emissions (Delbecq et al., 2023).

Discussion of Factors Influencing Emissions:

Several factors influence the GHG emissions associated with each SAF pathway:

1. Feedstock Type: The choice of feedstock is critical, as different crops and waste materials have varying carbon footprints. For example, using waste oils in the HEFA process results in lower emissions compared to using food crops  (Pipitone et al., 2023).
2. Production Methods: The efficiency of the conversion processes, including energy inputs and the source of hydrogen, significantly impacts emissions. For instance, the use of renewable energy sources for hydrogen production can reduce the overall GHG emissions of the HEFA pathway (Goh et al., 2022).
3. Land Use Change (LUC): The indirect emissions associated with land use change, particularly for feedstocks like palm oil and soybeans, can substantially increase the GHG emissions of SAFs (Delbecq et al., 2023).
4. Technological Maturity: The maturity of the technology also affects emissions. HEFA is currently the most commercially viable and widely adopted technology, while ATJ and FT are still developing (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).

Regulatory Standards and Certifications

Overview of Relevant Regulations: Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in shaping the production and use of SAFs, influencing their GHG emissions profiles.

• ASTM Standards: The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has established standards for SAFs, including ASTM D7566, which allows for the blending of SAF with conventional jet fuel. This standard includes specifications for various production pathways, such as HEFA-SPK and ATJ-SPK, ensuring that these fuels meet safety and performance criteria (Undavalli et al., 2023).
• CORSIA: The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is an international agreement aimed at stabilizing GHG emissions from international aviation. CORSIA sets a baseline for emissions and encourages the use of SAFs to offset emissions above this baseline. The scheme emphasizes the importance of life cycle assessments (LCA) to evaluate the GHG emissions of different fuel pathways (Kurzawska-Pietrowicz & Jasiński, 2024).

Impact on Emissions: These regulatory standards and certifications impact emissions by promoting the adoption of lower-emission technologies and providing a framework for measuring and reporting emissions. Compliance with these standards often requires rigorous life cycle assessments, which can lead to improvements in production efficiency and reductions in GHG emissions over time (Bann et al., 2017).

Production Scalability

The scalability of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production is crucial for meeting the growing demand for low-carbon aviation solutions. This section analyzes the current production capacities of various SAF pathways, discusses feedstock availability and constraints, and assesses the technological maturity of these pathways.

Current Production Capacities

The production capacities for Sustainable Aviation Fuels vary significantly across different pathways, reflecting the maturity and commercial viability of each technology.

• Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA): HEFA is currently the most commercially established pathway for SAF production. As of recent reports, several facilities worldwide are operational, producing SAF from waste oils and fats. For instance, the production capacity of HEFA facilities has been reported to exceed 1 billion liters annually, with major players like Neste and World Energy leading the market  (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The scalability of HEFA is supported by existing infrastructure for conventional jet fuel, allowing for easier integration into current supply chains.
• Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ): The ATJ pathway is still in the early stages of commercial deployment, with limited production facilities. Current capacities are significantly lower than HEFA, with estimates suggesting a few million liters produced annually (Ansell, 2023). Companies like Gevo and LanzaTech are developing ATJ technologies, but the pathway faces challenges in scaling up due to high production costs and the need for further technological advancements.
• Fischer-Tropsch (FT): The FT process has seen some commercial implementation, particularly in the context of converting biomass and natural gas into jet fuel. However, the production capacity remains modest compared to HEFA, with facilities like the one operated by Sasol producing around 100 million liters of FT fuels annually (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The scalability of FT is promising, especially with advancements in gasification technologies, but it requires significant investment in infrastructure.

Feedstock Availability and Constraints

The availability of feedstocks is a critical factor influencing the scalability of SAF production pathways.

• HEFA Feedstocks: HEFA primarily relies on waste oils, animal fats, and vegetable oils. While waste oils and fats are abundant, their availability can be limited by competition with food production and other uses (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The sustainability of feedstocks is also a concern, as the use of certain vegetable oils can lead to deforestation and land-use change (Ansell, 2023). This constraint impacts the long-term scalability of HEFA.
• ATJ Feedstocks: The ATJ pathway can utilize a wide range of feedstocks, including sugars, starches, and lignocellulosic biomass. However, the availability of these feedstocks can be inconsistent, and competition with food production remains a significant challenge (Ansell, 2023). The scalability of ATJ is further hindered by the need for advanced agricultural practices to ensure a sustainable supply of feedstocks.
• FT Feedstocks: FT processes can utilize various feedstocks, including biomass, natural gas, and even municipal solid waste. The flexibility in feedstock choice is a significant advantage; however, the availability of suitable biomass feedstocks can be limited by logistical challenges and the need for efficient collection and processing systems (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). Additionally, the economic viability of FT fuels is closely tied to the price of natural gas and biomass.

Technological Maturity

The technological readiness of each SAF pathway for large-scale implementation varies significantly.

• HEFA: The HEFA process is the most mature technology, with several commercial facilities already operational. The technology has been extensively tested and validated, making it a reliable option for immediate scalability (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The existing infrastructure for conventional jet fuel also facilitates the integration of HEFA into the aviation fuel supply chain.
• ATJ: The ATJ pathway is less mature, with only a few pilot and demonstration projects in operation. While the technology shows promise, it requires further development to improve production efficiency and reduce costs (Ansell, 2023). The scalability of ATJ is contingent upon advancements in fermentation and catalytic conversion technologies.
• FT: The FT process has a moderate level of technological maturity, with several commercial plants in operation. However, the technology is still evolving, and significant advancements are needed to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FT fuels (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The scalability of FT is promising, particularly as research continues to optimize gasification and synthesis processes.

Economic Feasibility

The economic feasibility of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) is a critical factor in their adoption and implementation within the aviation industry. This section provides a comparative analysis of production costs for different SAF pathways, examines market dynamics influencing economic viability, and discusses financial incentives and support mechanisms that can enhance the feasibility of these fuels.

Cost Analysis

Comparative Analysis of Production Costs:

The three primary pathways for producing SAFs—Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ), and Fischer-Tropsch (FT)—exhibit significant differences in production costs.

• HEFA: The production costs for HEFA typically range from €0.81 to €1.84 per liter, depending on the feedstock used (Detsios et al., 2023). The cost structure is heavily influenced by feedstock prices, which can account for over 50% of the total production costs. The use of waste oils, such as used cooking oil (UCO), tends to yield the most cost-competitive HEFA options (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).
• ATJ: The ATJ pathway generally has higher production costs, estimated between €1.50 and €3.00 per liter (Ansell, 2023). The variability in costs is largely due to the feedstock used, which can include sugars and starches. The ATJ process is still developing, and its economic feasibility is challenged by high production costs and the need for technological advancements (Wei et al., 2019).
• FT: The FT synthesis pathway shows a broader range of production costs, from €1.00 to €2.50 per liter (Wang et al., 2024). The costs are influenced by the price of natural gas or biomass feedstocks, as well as the capital expenditures associated with gasification and synthesis processes. FT fuels can achieve significant greenhouse gas reductions, but the initial investment in infrastructure can be substantial (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).

Discussion of Factors Affecting Costs:

Several factors influence the production costs of SAFs:

1. Feedstock Prices: The availability and price of feedstocks are critical determinants of production costs. Fluctuations in agricultural markets can significantly impact the cost of feedstocks like vegetable oils and sugars (Wang et al., 2024).
2. Capital Expenditures: The initial investment required for production facilities varies by pathway. HEFA technology is more mature and thus may require lower capital investment compared to ATJ and FT processes, which are still evolving (Ansell, 2023).
3. Technological Advancements: Innovations in production technologies can lead to cost reductions over time. For instance, improvements in catalyst efficiency and process optimization can enhance the economic viability of ATJ and FT pathways (Wei et al., 2019).

Market Dynamics

Overview of Market Demand for SAF:

The demand for SAF is influenced by several factors, including regulatory frameworks, consumer preferences, and the overall growth of the aviation sector. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set ambitious targets for reducing aviation emissions, which has spurred interest in SAF adoption (Lau et al., 2024).

• Influence on Economic Feasibility: As demand for SAF increases, economies of scale can be achieved, potentially lowering production costs. However, the current market for SAF remains limited, with production operating at only a fraction of its potential capacity (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022). The establishment of a robust market for SAF is essential for driving down costs and enhancing economic feasibility.

Financial Incentives and Support

Discussion of Government Policies, Subsidies, and Incentives: Government policies play a crucial role in shaping the economic landscape for SAF production. Various incentives can enhance the viability of SAF pathways:

1. Subsidies and Tax Credits: Financial support mechanisms, such as subsidies for SAF production or tax credits for airlines using SAF, can significantly impact the economic feasibility of these fuels (Wang et al., 2024). For example, the U.S. has introduced tax incentives to promote the use of SAF, which can help offset production costs  (Wang et al., 2024).
2. Regulatory Frameworks: Policies like the European Union’s ReFuelEU Aviation mandate specific targets for SAF integration, which can stimulate market demand and encourage investment in production technologies (Wei et al., 2019).
3. Research and Development Funding: Government investment in R&D for SAF technologies can lead to innovations that reduce production costs and improve efficiency. This support is particularly important for emerging technologies like ATJ and FT, which require further development to become commercially viable (Lau et al., 2024).

Conclusion

The transition to Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) is critical for the aviation industry to achieve its carbon neutrality goals. This literature study synthesizes key findings from the comparative analysis of various SAF pathways, including Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ), and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis, focusing on emissions, scalability, and economic factors.

Summary of Key Findings:

Emissions Profiles:

• HEFA: This pathway demonstrates the lowest life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, with reductions of up to 80% compared to conventional jet fuels, particularly when utilizing waste feedstocks such as used cooking oils (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).
• ATJ: The emissions from ATJ vary significantly based on feedstock, with potential reductions ranging from negative emissions to higher outputs depending on the agricultural practices and feedstock types used (Ansell, 2023).
• FT: The FT process also shows promise, with emissions reductions of approximately 50% when using biomass as a feedstock, but it is generally more expensive and less commercially viable than HEFA (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).

Scalability:

• HEFA: Currently the most scalable option, with existing infrastructure allowing for rapid integration into the aviation fuel supply chain. Major producers have already established significant production capacities (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).
• ATJ: While promising, ATJ is still in the early stages of commercial deployment, facing challenges related to feedstock availability and production costs  (Ansell, 2023).
• FT: Although FT has potential, its scalability is limited by high capital costs and the need for significant investment in gasification technology (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).

Economic Factors:

• HEFA: Despite being the most commercially viable, HEFA production costs are still 120% higher than conventional fuels, primarily due to feedstock prices (Watson et al., 2024).
• ATJ: The ATJ pathway has higher production costs, estimated between €1.50 and €3.00 per liter, which limits its economic feasibility without substantial government support (Ansell, 2023).
• FT: The FT process is economically challenging, with production costs that can exceed those of HEFA and ATJ, making it less attractive for immediate adoption (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).

Recommendations for Stakeholders:

1. Adoption of HEFA: Stakeholders in the aviation industry should prioritize the adoption of HEFA as the primary SAF pathway due to its established technology, lower emissions profile, and scalability. Investment in waste feedstock collection and processing infrastructure can enhance sustainability and reduce costs (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).
2. Support for ATJ Development: Given its potential for significant emissions reductions, stakeholders should advocate for research and development funding for ATJ technologies. This includes exploring diverse feedstock options and improving production efficiencies to make ATJ more economically viable (Ansell, 2023).
3. Investment in FT Research: While FT is currently less competitive, its potential for utilizing a wide range of feedstocks, including municipal solid waste, warrants continued investment in research to optimize production processes and reduce costs (Shahriar & Khanal, 2022).
4. Policy and Incentives: Governments should implement policies that provide financial incentives for SAF production, such as tax credits and subsidies, to encourage the adoption of these technologies. Regulatory frameworks like CORSIA should be leveraged to create a market for SAFs, ensuring that airlines can meet emissions targets while transitioning to sustainable fuels (Wang et al., 2024).
5. Collaboration Across Sectors: Stakeholders should foster collaboration between airlines, fuel producers, and policymakers to create a cohesive strategy for SAF adoption. This includes sharing best practices, technological advancements, and establishing a robust supply chain for sustainable feedstocks (Wang et al., 2024).

 References

• Abrantes, I., Ferreira, A. F., Silva, A., & Costa, M. (2021). Sustainable aviation fuels and imminent technologies – CO2 emissions evolution towards 2050. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127937
• Ansell, P. J. (2023). Review of sustainable energy carriers for aviation: Benefits, challenges, and future viability. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 141, 100919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2023.100919
• Bann, S. J., Malina, R., Staples, M. D., Suresh, P., Pearlson, M., Tyner, W. E., Hileman, J. I., & Barrett, S. (2017). The costs of production of alternative jet fuel: A harmonized stochastic assessment. Bioresource Technology, 227, 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.032
• Delbecq, S., Fontane, J., Gourdain, N., Planès, T., & Simatos, F. (2023). Sustainable aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement: A review of prospective scenarios and their technological mitigation levers. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 141, 100920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2023.100920
• Detsios, N., Theodoraki, S., Maragoudaki, L., Atsonios, K., Grammelis, P., & Orfanoudakis, N. G. (2023). Recent advances on alternative aviation fuels/pathways: A critical review. Energies, 16(4), 1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041904
• Dray, L., Schäfer, A. W., Grobler, C., Falter, C., Allroggen, F., Stettler, M. E. J., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2022). Cost and emissions pathways towards net-zero climate impacts in aviation. Nature Climate Change, 12(10), 956-962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01485-4
• Goh, B. H. H., Chong, C. T., Ong, H. C., Seljak, T., Katrašnik, T., Józsa, V., Ng, J.-H., Tian, B., Karmarkar, S., & Ashokkumar, V. (2022). Recent advancements in catalytic conversion pathways for synthetic jet fuel produced from bioresources. Energy Conversion and Management, 251, 114974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114974
• Kohse-Höinghaus, K. (2023). Combustion, chemistry, and carbon neutrality. Chemical Reviews, 123(8), 5139-5219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00828
• Kurzawska-Pietrowicz, P., & Jasiński, R. (2024). A review of alternative aviation fuels. Energies, 17(16), 3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17163890
• Lau, J. I. C., Wang, Y. S., Ang, T., Seo, J. C. F., Khadaroo, S. N. B. A., Chew, J. J., Ng Kay Lup, A., & Sunarso, J. (2024). Emerging technologies, policies, and challenges toward implementing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Biomass & Bioenergy, 186, 107277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2024.107277
• Okolie, J. A., Awotoye, D., Tabat, M. E., Okoye, P. U., Epelle, E. I., Ogbaga, C. C., Güleç, F., & Oboirien, B. (2023). Multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation and screening of sustainable aviation fuel production pathways. iScience, 26(6), 106944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106944
• Pipitone, G., Zoppi, G., Pirone, R., & Bensaid, S. (2023). Sustainable aviation fuel production using in-situ hydrogen supply via aqueous phase reforming: A techno-economic and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 418, 138141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138141
• Saad, D. M., Terlouw, T., Sacchi, R., & Bauer, C. (2024). Life cycle economic and environmental assessment of producing synthetic jet fuel using CO2/biomass feedstocks. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(21), 9158-9174. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c01578
• Shahriar, M. F., & Khanal, A. (2022). The current techno-economic, environmental, policy status and perspectives of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Fuel (Guildford), 325, 124905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124905
• Song, Z., Li, Z., & Liu, Z. (2024). Comparison of emission properties of sustainable aviation fuels and conventional aviation fuels: A review. Applied Sciences, 14(13), 5484. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135484
• Undavalli, V., Gbadamosi Olatunde, O. B., Boylu, R., Wei, C., Haeker, J., Hamilton, J., & Khandelwal, B. (2023). Recent advancements in sustainable aviation fuels. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 136, 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2022.100876
• Wang, B., Ting, Z. J., & Zhao, M. (2024). Sustainable aviation fuels: Key opportunities and challenges in lowering carbon emissions for the aviation industry. Carbon Capture Science & Technology, 13, 100263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100263
• Watson, M. J., Machado, P. G., da Silva, A. V., Saltar, Y., Ribeiro, C. O., Nascimento, C. A. O., & Dowling, A. W. (2024). Sustainable aviation fuel technologies, costs, emissions, policies, and markets: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 449, 141472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141472
• Wei, H., Liu, W., Chen, X., Yang, Q., Li, J., & Chen, H. (2019). Renewable bio-jet fuel production for aviation: A review. Fuel (Guildford), 254, 115599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.06.007