Advertisement

An eco-profile of thermoplastic protein derived from blood meal Part 1: allocation issues

  • Jim M. Bier
  • Casparus J. R. Verbeek
  • Mark C. Lay
LCA FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES

Abstract

Purpose

A renewable thermoplastic called Novatein Thermoplastic Protein (NTP) has been developed from blood meal—a low-value by-product of the meat processing industry. The aim of this research was to develop a non-renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission eco-profile for cradle to gate production of NTP. Environmental impacts of supplying blood meal as a raw material were investigated using different allocation methods for farming and blood meal production. These included mass, economic, treating low-value by-products as waste and system expansion by substitution. In part 2, the entire system will be analysed on a cradle to gate basis and include the production of thermoplastic (NTP).

Methods

A theoretical NTP production facility was analysed for non-renewable primary energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Data for feedstocks and process steps were obtained from published papers, government agency reports and engineering models. Mass and economic allocation models treating low-value by-products as waste and substitution were applied, and a sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the impact of different methods of allocation on environmental impact.

Results and discussion

Non-renewable energy use in blood meal production varied between 5 (substitution) and 38 MJ (simple mass allocation) per kg of NTP. Greenhouse gas emissions varied between 0.4 (substitution), or even less if the biogenic carbon content is considered a credit, and 14 kg (mass allocation) CO2e per kg NTP.

Conclusions

It was concluded that both mass allocation and a waste assumption should be considered for the cradle to gate system. Mass allocation is common in other attributional studies and allows for a more transparent comparison. The most appropriate treatment of allocation in an attributional profile was to consider blood as a waste with regard to farming and meat processing, but include blood drying. This takes into account the motivations for farming and meat processing, but also recognises that there are other treatment options for blood that do not produce blood meal used in manufacturing NTP. This would allow NTP to be compared to other bioplastics as well as identifying hot spots in its cradle to gate production. It was also anticipated that results may be adapted in future cradle to grave assessments as product systems are developed.

Keywords

Allocation Bio-based materials Bioplastic Biopolymer Blood meal Cradle to gate Life cycle assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the University of Waikato, Novatein Ltd. and the C Alma Baker Trust.

References

  1. Akiyama M, Tsuge T, Doi Y (2003) Environmental life cycle comparison of polyhydroxyalkanoates produced from renewable carbon resources by bacterial fermentation. Polym Degrad Stab 80:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcorn A (2003) Embodied energy and CO2 coefficients for New Zealand building materials. ISSN 1172-563X, ISBN 0-475-11099-4, Centre for Building Performance Research. Victoria University of Wellington, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber A (2009) NZ fuel and electricity—total primary energy use, carbon dioxide and GHG emission factors, AgriLINK NZ Ltd (The AgriBusiness Group) http://agrilink.co.nz/
  4. Barber A, Campbell A, Hennessy W (2007) Primary energy and net greenhouse gas emissions from biodiesel made from New Zealand Tallow—CRL energy report 06-11547b. CRL energy report 06-11547b, report to Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). CRL Energy Ltd, Lower HuttGoogle Scholar
  5. Boustead I (2005) Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry METHODOLOGY, A report by I Boustead for PlasticsEurope (p. 101): PlasticsEurope http://lca.plasticseurope.org/methodol.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2009
  6. Canals L, Domènèch X, Rieradevall J, Puig R, Fullana P (2002) Use of Life Cycle assessment in the procedure for the establishment of environmental criteria in the catalan ECO-label of leather. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:39–46Google Scholar
  7. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2007) Reference document on best available techniques in the slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries, European Commission Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies http://www.jrc.es
  9. European Commission-Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernando T (1984) Blood collection and processing. Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Richmond, School of Food SciencesGoogle Scholar
  11. Filstrup P (1980) Processes and equipment for protein by-products in the meat industry. In: Grant RA (ed) Applied protein chemistry. Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London, pp 181–222Google Scholar
  12. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerngross TU (1999) Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society? Nat Biotechnol 17:541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guinée JB, Ebrary Inc (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Eco-efficiency in industry and science; v. 7. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, xi, 692 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Gurieff N, Lant P (2007) Comparative life cycle assessment and financial analysis of mixed culture polyhydroxyalkanoate production. Bioresource Technol 98:3393–3403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding KG, Dennis JS, von Blottnitz H, Harrison STL (2007) Environmental analysis of plastic production processes: comparing petroleum-based polypropylene and polyethylene with biologically-based poly-[beta]-hydroxybutyric acid using life cycle analysis. J Biotechnol 130:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Standards Organisation (2006) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, Geneva, Switzerland, 46 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. John S, Nebel B, Perez N, Buchanan A (2008) Environmental impacts of multi-storey buildings using different construction materials, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Revised May 2009Google Scholar
  19. Joseph K, Nithya N (2009) Material flows in the life cycle of leather. J Clean Prod 17:676–682Google Scholar
  20. Kim S, Dale B (2005) Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (Polyhydroxyalkanoates) - Derived from No-Tilled Corn (11 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:200–210Google Scholar
  21. Kim S, Dale B (2008) Energy and greenhouse gas profiles of polyhydroxybutyrates derived from corn grain: a life cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 42:7690–7695Google Scholar
  22. Kim S, Dale B, Jenkins R (2009) Life cycle assessment of corn grain and corn stover in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:160–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madival S, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R (2009) Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J Clean Prod 17:1183–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ministry of Economic Development (2009a) New Zealand energy data file. In: Dang H et al (eds) New Zealand energy data file. Ministry of Economic Development, Wellington, p 168, 09 2008 calendar year editionGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Economic Development (2009b) New Zealand energy greenhouse gas emissions; 09, 2008 Calendar Year Edition. ISSN 1173–6771 Paperback, ISSN 1177–9764, online version, Ministry of Economic Development, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. MIRINZ (1985) Bulletin no 10: maximising yields from conventional blood processing. Guidelines to improve production. Meat Industry Reseach Institute of New Zealand Inc., HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  27. Neulicht RM, Shular J (1995) Emission factor documentation for AP-42 section 9.5.3 meat rendering plants final report, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under EPA contract no. 68-D2-0159Google Scholar
  28. Nielsen PH, 2.0 LCA Consultants (2003) Bone-, blood- and meat meal production (Fremstilling af ben-, blod-og kødmel) LCA Food DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  29. Patel M (2003) Cumulative energy demand (CED) and cumulative CO2 emissions for products of the organic chemical industry. Energy 28:721–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patel M (2005) Environmental life cycle comparisons of biodegradable plastics. In: Bastioli C, Rapra Technology Limited (eds) Handbook of biodegradable polymers. Rapra Technology, Shrewsbury, pp 431–484Google Scholar
  31. Plastics Europe (2009) Eco-Profiles and environmental declarations LCI methodology and PCR for uncompounded polymer reisns and reactive polymer precursers, PlasticsEuropeGoogle Scholar
  32. Sakai K, Taniguchi M, Miura S, Ohara H, Matsumoto T, Shirai Y (2003) Making plastics from garbage. J Ind Ecol 7:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smits R, Riley J, Jager C (2008) Commercial feasibility study. In: Verbeek J (ed) Proteinous bioplastic. Novatein Ltd, Hamilton, p 135Google Scholar
  34. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1999) AS/NZS ISO 14041:1999 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. Australian/New Zealand Standard. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Wellington, iv, 22 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Swan JE (2000) Animal by-product processing. In: Francis FJ (ed) Wiley encyclopedia of food science and technology. Wiley, New York, p 4, xxi, 2768Google Scholar
  36. Verbeek CJR, van den Berg LE (2011) Mechanical properties and water absorption of thermoplastic bloodmeal. Macromol Mater Eng 296(6):524–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verbeek CJR, Viljoen C, Pickering KL, van den Berg LE (2007) NZ551531: Plastics material. In: IPONZ (ed) WAIKATOLINK LIMITED, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  38. Vink ETH, Rábago KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorksTM polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab 80:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley RJ, O’Connor RP (2007) The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3:58–81, Original ResearchCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wells CM (2001) Total energy indicators of agricultural sustainability: dairy farming case study. ISBN: 0-478-07968-0 ISSN: 1171–4662, Report to MAF Policy, Department of Physics, University of OtagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Meat & Wool New Zealand (2009) Sheep & Beef New Season Outlook 2009–10. ISSN 1176–824X print version, ISSN 1177–794X, online version, Meat & Wool New Zealand http://www.meatandwoolnz.com/download_file.cfm/New_Season_Outlook_2009-10.PDF?id=1790,f. Accessed 2 Oct 2009
  42. Yates (2009) Dried Blood. Retrieved 15 September 2009, from http://www.yates.co.nz/products/fertilising/specialised/yates-dried-blood/. Accessed 15 Sept 2009

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jim M. Bier
    • 1
  • Casparus J. R. Verbeek
    • 1
  • Mark C. Lay
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations