An ecoprofile of thermoplastic protein derived from blood meal Part 2: thermoplastic processing

  • Jim M. Bier
  • Casparus J. R. VerbeekEmail author
  • Mark C. Lay



The purpose of this research was to develop a nonrenewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions ecoprofile of thermoplastic protein derived from blood meal (Novatein thermoplastic protein; NTP). This was intended for comparison with other bioplastics as well as identification of hot spots in its cradle-to-gate production. In Part 1 of this study, the effect of allocation on the blood meal used as a raw material was discussed. The objective of Part 2 was to assess the ecoprofile of the thermoplastic conversion process and to compare the cradle-to-gate portion of the polymer's life cycle to other bioplastics.


Inventory was collected to aggregate nonrenewable primary energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Data were collected from a variety of sources including published papers, reports to government agencies, engineering models and information from a single blood meal production facility. Several assumptions regarding the thermoplastic conversion process were evaluated by way of a sensitivity analysis.


The allocation procedure chosen for the impacts of farming and meat processing had the greatest effect on results. Excluding farming and meat processing, blood drying had the greatest contribution to nonrenewable energy use and GHGs, followed by the petrochemical plasticizer used. Other assumptions, such as scarcity of water or inclusion of pigments, although significant when considered for blood meal conversion to NTP alone, were found not to be significant when production of blood meal was included in the analysis. Qualitative differences were observed between NTP and other bioplastics. For example, the profiles of some other bio-based polymers were dominated by fermentation and polymer recovery processes. In the case of NTP, it is the production of the raw material used that is most significant, and thermoplastic modification has a relatively low contribution to GHGs and nonrenewable energy use.


For a truly attributional scenario, production of any ruminant animal products does have an associated GHG. Deriving this for blood meal on a mass-based allocation seems to indicate that NTP is less favorable than other cradle-to-gate bioplastic production systems from a global warming perspective.

On the other hand, the motivation for developing the material in the first place was to make use of an existing waste product. If it is assumed that the magnitude of blood meal production is independent of fertilizer or plastics demand and, instead, reflects demand for major products such as meat, further development of NTP is justified.


Allocation Bioplastic Blood meal Cradle to gate Greenhouse gas emissions Life cycle assessment Modified natural polymer Sensitivity analysis 



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


  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, Wood P (1998) New Zealand building materials embodied energy coefficients database. Volume II—coefficients. ISSN 1172-563X, ISBN 0-475-50017-2, 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)
  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). Prepared by CRL Energy Ltd, Lower HuttGoogle Scholar
  5. Bier J (2010) The eco-profile of thermoplastic protein derived from blood meal, by Jim Bier., The University of Waikato, Te Whare Wananga o Waikato Hamilton, xi, pp 150Google Scholar
  6. British Standards Institution (2008) PAS 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Capello C, Wernet G, Sutter J, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2009) A comprehensive environmental assessment of petrochemical solvent production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2007) Reference document on best available techniques for the manufacture of large volume inorganic chemicals—solids and others industry, European Commission Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) Institute for Prospective Technological StudiesGoogle Scholar
  9. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerngross TU (1999) Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society? Nat Biotechnol 17:541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hischier R, Hellweg S, Capello C, Primas A (2005) Establishing life cycle inventories of chemicals based on differing data availability (9 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks AJ, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2005) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40:641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiménez-González C, Kim S, Overcash M (2000) Methodology for developing gate-to-gate Life cycle inventory information. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim S, Dale B (2005) Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (polyhydroxyalkanoates)—derived from no-tilled corn. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim S, Dale BE (2008) Energy and greenhouse gas profiles of polyhydroxybutyrates derived from corn grain: a life cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 42:7690–7695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim S, Overcash M (2003) Energy in chemical manufacturing processes: gate-to-gate information for life cycle assessment. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 78:995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Ministry of Economic Development (2009) New Zealand energy data file 09 2008 calendar year edition. In: Dang H et al (eds) New Zealand energy data file. Ministry of Economic Development, Wellington, p 168Google Scholar
  19. Patel M (2003a) Do biopolymers fulfil our expectations? In: Chiellini E, Solaro R (eds) Biodegradable polymers and plastics. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, Dordrecht, pp 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patel M (2003b) Cumulative energy demand (CED) and cumulative CO2 emissions for products of the organic chemical industry. Energy 28:721–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patel M (2005) Environmental life cycle comparisons of biodegradable plastics. In: Bastioli C (ed) Handbook of biodegradable polymers. Rapra Technology, Shrewsbury, pp 431–484Google Scholar
  22. Patel MK, Theiß A, Worrell E (1999) Surfactant production and use in Germany: resource requirements and CO2 emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl 25:61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pietrini M, Roes L, Patel MK, Chiellini E (2007) Comparative life cycle studies on poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)-based composites as potential replacement for conventional petrochemical plastics. Biomacromolecules 8:2210–2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. PlasticsEurope (2008) Linear low density polyethylene (LDPE), PlasticsEuropeGoogle Scholar
  25. Reck E, Richards M (1999) TiO manufacture and life cycle analysis. Pigment Resin Technol 28:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rudnik E (2008) Compostable polymer materials, xiith edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 211Google Scholar
  27. Smits R, Riley J, Jager C (2008) Commercial feasibility study: proteinous bioplastic. In: Verbeek J (eds) Novatein Ltd, Hamilton, pp 135Google Scholar
  28. Stokes JR, Horvath A (2009) Energy and air emission effects of water supply. Environ Sci Technol 43:2680–2687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Verbeek CJR, van den Berg LE (2010) Extrusion processing and properties of protein-based thermoplastics. Macromol Mater Eng 295:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verbeek CJR, van den Berg LE (2011) Mechanical properties and water absorption of thermoplastic blood meal. Macromol Mater Eng 296(6):524–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verbeek CJR, Viljoen C, Pickering KL, van den Berg LE (2007) NZ551531: Plastics material. In: IPONZ (ed) Waikatolink Limited, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  32. Vink ETH, Rábago KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks(TM) polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab 80:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley RJ, O'Connor RP (2007) Original research: the eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3:58–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations