By adding a “physical layer of validation” at the point of consumption, Lynn Loo believes this process can boost buyers’ confidence in the integrity of the biofuel supply chain.
Lynn Loo is the chief executive of the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD), a Singapore-based non-profit focused on piloting and testing alternative fuels. Last year, GCMD and marine fuel testing firm VPS developed a new technique to check feedstock sustainability for fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) based biofuels.
This technique, called chemical fingerprinting, relies on forensic analysis and gas chromatography methods to determine the source of the bio-components in the biofuel blends. Gas chromatography is a method for identifying the elements of a mixture, especially liquids that can turn into vapour.
Biofuels, like people, have unique fingerprints. Analysing them can reveal a fuel’s true origins and detect if it has been adulterated, tampered with, or otherwise compromised, GCMD’s Lynn Loo said in an exclusive interview with ENGINE.
The test can trace the origin of bio-components in all FAME-based biofuels up to B100 (100% biofuel).
Loo noted that this is particularly important because some actors in the supply chain commit fraud by substituting used cooking oil (UCO) for virgin oils, such as palm oil.
How can chemical fingerprinting be integrated into existing compliance frameworks?
We believe chemical fingerprinting can complement existing compliance frameworks to address growing concerns about the legitimacy and sustainability of biofuels. This study was initiated partly in response to feedback from our stakeholders. When we launched our biofuels initiative, we asked around 150 stakeholders why they don’t use biofuels, even though they are available today.
Of course, the chief concern was cost, but since that’s market-driven it’s very hard for GCMD to make an impact here. The second concern was confidence in supply chain integrity. Buyers were uncertain if they were getting the exact biofuel they paid for.
To address this, we designed biofuels trials focused on supply chain integrity. We worked with seven shipowners across four supply chains, using commercial assets on commercial routes. In these trials, we tracked the biofuels from its production to consumption by adding tracers. The tracers allowed us to monitor the biofuels and detect if they had been adulterated or tampered with, based on changes in tracer concentration or their complete absence.
A significant part of the trial involved developing a fingerprinting technique to identify biofuels’ feedstock. Just as every person has a unique fingerprint, biofuels also have unique chemical fingerprints. Specifically, we analysed the FAME profile of the biodiesel. For example, when biodiesel is made from UCO, this fingerprint can reveal whether it’s truly made from UCO or has been replaced with virgin oils. This is especially important because there have been reports of fraudulently substituting with virgin oils, for example palm oil.
This fingerprinting technique enables us to chemically verify the type of feedstock used in biodiesel by analysing its unique FAME profile. It complements existing certification schemes like ISCC [International Sustainability and Carbon Certification], which indirectly provides assurance that the product is sustainably sourced. Our method adds a physical layer of validation on the product at the point of use, ensuring integrity at the batch level. Together, these approaches make the supply chain more robust and trustworthy.
How practical and scalable is gas chromatography for routine biofuel analysis across ports and shipping companies, considering testing speed and cost in high-volume operations?
I’ll answer this in two ways. Today, fuel testing is already a common practice. The time it takes for chemical fingerprinting using gas chromatography takes no longer than the time it takes for regular fuel testing, making this very feasible.
LNG undergoes in-line chromatography testing during bunkering to check for purity and contaminants. The same gas chromatography tool is being used here, but for a different purpose: identifying the unique chemical fingerprint of biofuels. It’s a different application, but it builds on existing techniques, making it adaptable to current testing processes.
As for cost, I believe the team estimated that fingerprinting adds no more than 0.3% to the total cost of biofuels on a batch basis. The incremental cost is relatively small, especially when you consider the benefits. It helps prevent fraud and ensures that the green premium you’re paying for biofuels is genuinely contributing to environmental goals. Overall, it’s a valuable tool for building confidence in the integrity of the biofuel supply chain.
As you highlight in your report, not all FAME-based biofuels are the same, because of its feedstock sources. Do you see a potential gap in the industry regarding biofuel certification and traceability?
The lack of granular information from suppliers on the biofuels’ feedstock source poses a problem. For example, a supplier might label feedstock as food waste without specifying its type. Given that different feedstocks have varying carbon intensities and emissions footprint from a well-to-wake perspective, it is essential to ascertain the specific type.
This is where the ability to fingerprint and identify the feedstock origin becomes crucial. We believe this approach complements biofuel certification and enhances traceability. What we’re doing can add robustness to the fuel supply chain, ensuring greater confidence in sustainable biofuels being used.
How can the complexity and cost of using gas chromatography for various biofuel types be managed, especially for smaller suppliers, while ensuring scalability?
Addressing the question of wider adoption by smaller scale suppliers ultimately depends on who should be responsible for testing and who requires this information. Currently, we are working with shipowners and operators because they are the ones paying the premium for biofuels and want assurance that the fuels deliver the expected emissions reductions.
I think this FAME fingerprinting testing can be integrated into the existing ecosystem. Fuels are already being tested for various parameters, such as moisture content, acid levels and contaminants. Fingerprinting for feedstock traceability needs to be formally incorporated into the existing guidelines and testing procedures.
