Attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA) of polyitaconic acid production from northeast US softwood biomass

LCA OF CHEMICALS

Abstract

Purpose

Shifting the resource base for chemical and energy production from fossil feed stocks to renewable raw materials is seen by many as one of the key strategies towards sustainable development. The objective of this study is to assess the environmental burdens of producing polyitaconic acid (PIA), a water-soluble polymer derived from itaconic acid identified by the US Department of Energy as one of the top 12 value added chemicals from northeast (NE) US softwood biomass. Results are compared to corn-derived PIA and fossil-based poly acrylic acid (PAA) on the basis of 1 kg of polymer at the factory gate.

Methods

This study uses attributional life cycle assessment to quantify global warming potential (GWP), fossil energy demand (CED), acidification, eutrophication, water use, and land occupation of the polymer production routes. This includes feedstock growth and harvest, sugar extraction, fermentation, itaconic acid recovery, and subsequent polymerization. Foreground data for softwood-derived PIA comes from lab- and pilot plant runs undertaken by Itaconix LLC.

Results and discussion

Results indicate that the use of softwood-based PIA may be advantageous in terms of GWP, CED, and acidification when compared to both, the integrated corn biorefinery and fossil-based PAA production. When looking at impacts to eutrophication and water use, the use of softwood leads to lower potential impacts compared to its corn-based counterpart but to higher impacts when compared to fossil-based PAA. Land occupation, to a large extent, due to lower yields and longer growth cycles associated with softwood growth in the NE, is highest for softwood-derived PIA and lowest for fossil-based PAA. Environmental impacts are mainly the results of onsite electricity use, inputs of activated carbon and sodium hydroxide, as well as water use during sugar extraction and fermentation. Assumptions with regards to allocation, activated carbon inputs, and electricity mixes to processes of the foreground system are tested in a sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Wood-derived PIA production may be an interesting alternative to current fossil-based pathways and could contribute to a future biobased economy. However, currently, land occupation, water use, and eutrophication are high when compared to traditional PAA production. The use of short rotation crops or waste feedstocks and optimization with regards to water requirements and reuse should be investigated to further lower system-wide impacts.

Keywords

Biopolymers Corn feedstock Integrated biorefinery Life cycle assessment (LCA) Polyacrylic acid Polyitaconic acid Softwood biomass Stream-integrated process 

Supplementary material

11367_2012_511_MOESM1_ESM.docx (859 kb)
ESM 1DOCX 859 kb

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 Stabil 80(1):183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Althaus H-J, Hischier R, Osses M, Primas A, Hellweg S, Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M (2007a) Life cycle inventories of chemicals data v2.0. Ecoinvent Centre. ETH Zurich, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  3. Althaus H-J, Werner F, Stettler C (2007b) Life cycle inventories of renewable materials data v2.0. Ecoinvent Centre. ETH Zurich, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  4. Amidon TE (2006) The biorefinery in New York: woody biomass into commercial ethanol. Pulp Pap-Can 6(107):47–50Google Scholar
  5. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington D, McKone T (2002) Traci—the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer C, Bolliger R, Tuchschmidt M, Faist-Emmenegger M (2007) “Wasserkraft.” Sachbilanzen von energiesystemen: grundlagen fuer den oekologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Oekoblianzen fuer die Schweiz, Ecoinvent Report No. 6-VIII (In German), R. Dones, ed., Paul Scherrer Institute Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, SwitzerlanGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin J, Lilieholm RJ, Damery D (2009) Challenges and opportunities for the northeastern forest bioindustry. J For 107(3):125–131Google Scholar
  8. Dodds DR, Gross RA (2007) Chemistry: chemicals from biomass. Science 318(5854):1250–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ecoinvent (2010) Ecoinvent life cycle inventory database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle InventoriesGoogle Scholar
  10. US Forest Service (2010) Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program—tools and data. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/default.asp. Accessed on: 27 Dec 2010
  11. Gerngross TU (1999) Can biotechnology move us towards a sustainable society. Nat Biotechnol 17:541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goedkoop M, Oele M, de Schryver A, Vieira M (2008) SimaPro database manual—methods library. PRé Consultants, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation. (www.lcia-recipe.net)
  14. Itaconix, LLC (2009) The development of integrated production of polyitaconic acid from Northeast hardwood biomass. Grant Project Proposal, Itaconix, LLC, (Principal); Microbia, Inc.; University of MaineGoogle Scholar
  15. Itaconix, LLC (2010) Technical datasheet: ITACONIX™ Dispersant DSP2KGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson E (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints right. Environ Impact Assess 29(3):165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M, Dauriat A, Dinkel F, Doka G, Emmenegger MF, Gnansounou E, Kljun N, Schleiss K, Spielmann M, Stettler C, Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. Ecoinvent report no.17. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamm B, Gruber PR, Kamm M (2006) Biorefineries—industrial processes and products: status quo and future directions, volume 2. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Khoo HH, Tan RBH, Chang KWL (2010) Environmental impacts of conventional plastic and bio-based carrier bags. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):284–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koellner T, Scholz R (2007) Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, Mabee W, MacLean HL (2011) Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(2):789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO New England (2010) 2010 Regional System Plan (www.iso-ne.com)
  23. Nielsen PH, Oxenbøll KM, Wenzel H (2006) Cradle-to-gate environmental assessment of enzyme products produced industrially in denmark by novozymes A/S. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):432–438Google Scholar
  24. NREL (2008) U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database (U.S. LCI), v1.6.0. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)Google Scholar
  25. Oneil EE, Johnson LR, Lippke BR, McCarter JB, McDill ME, Roth PA (2010) Life-cycle impacts of Inland Northwest and Northeast/North Central Forest Resources. 42(CORRIM Special Issue), pp. 29–51Google Scholar
  26. Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest Resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, p 336Google Scholar
  27. US EPA (2011) Chapter 9: food and agricultural industries, AP 42, fifth edition, volume I. Office of Air Quality Planning and StandardsGoogle Scholar
  28. USDA (2011) Agricultural marketing service—market news and transportation data. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?startIndex=1&template=TemplateW&page=SearchFeedstuffsReports. 6 Jul 2011
  29. Vink ETH, Rábago KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks(TM) polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stabil 80(3):403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vink ETH, Glassner D, Kolstad J, Wooley R, O’Connor R (2007) The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3(1):58–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vink ETH, Davies S, Kolstad J (2010) The eco-profile for current Ingeo® polylactide production. Ind Biotechnol 6(4):212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker T (2010) Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Natural Capital Initiative Report. Manomet Center for Conservation Science, BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  33. Werner F, Althaus H-J, Kuenninger T, Richter K, Jungbluth N (2007) Life cycle inventories of wood as fuel and construction material—data v2.0. Dübendorf: SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Werpy T, Petersen G (2004) Top value added chemicals from biomass, volume 1: results of screening for potential candidates from sugars and synthesis gas. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Research GroupUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations