ISSN 1550-9087

VOLUME 6 NUMBER 4
AUGUST 2010

The journal of biobased industries

Preemptive management
of synthetic biology initiatives

PEER REVIEW
Eco-profile for Ingeo®
polylactide production
Biocatalytic vs. chemical production
of alkanolamide biosurfactants
 PEER REVIEW
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The eco-profile for current Ingeo ®

polylactide production
paper provides the latest cradle-to-polymer-factory-gate life cycle
Erwin T.H. Vink,1* Steve Davies,2 and Jeffrey J. Kolstad2 inventory data (also referred to as an eco-profile) for Ingeo as being
produced starting in 2009. It also provides a description of the 2009
Ingeo production system and compares the current energy requirements
and greenhouse gas emissions with previous and future Ingeo produc-
NatureWorks BV, PO Box 5528, 1410EA, Naarden, The Netherlands
1
tion systems. Finally, this study benchmarks the results for these two
paramaters, with data valid for a selection of fossil-based polymers.
NatureWorks LLC, 15305 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota
2

1 Introduction

I
55345 USA
n November 2001, NatureWorks LLC started the production of
*Corresponding author  Ingeo polylactide resins in its 140 000 tonne-per-year manu-
Tel: +31 114 315944 facturing facility in Blair, Nebraska, USA. One year later,
Fax: +31 114 315938 NatureWorks started producing lactic acid in its 180 000-tonne-
Email: [email protected] per-year manufacturing facility located next to the polymer plant.
Today, these two plants are the only large-scale commercial produc-
®Registered trademark of NatureWorks LLC tion facilities for polylactide worldwide.
Ingeo is a polymer made entirely from annually renewable resources
Submitted: 26 January 2010; Revised: 17 May 2010; Accepted: 18 June 2010 and used in a broad range of applications, including rigid packag-
ing and films, disposable serviceware, bottles, folding boxes, cards,
KEYWORDS: NatureWorks, polylactic acid, polylactide, PLA, Ingeo, life cycle consumer electronics, automotive, fiberfill, wipes, carpet, apparel,
assessment, life cycle analysis, LCA, life cycle inventory, eco-profile feminine hygiene products, and diapers.
In 2003 NatureWorks published the first cradle-to-polymer-
ACRONYMS: CO2 eq, carbon dioxide equivalents; CWM, corn wet mill; GHG, factory-gate life cycle inventory data (eco-profile) for Ingeo polylac-
greenhouse gas(es); LCI, Life cycle inventory; MWh, megawatt-hours; PLA, tide production.1 That paper gave an introduction to the company
polylactide; MAPP, Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, PET, polyethylene tere- NatureWorks, Ingeo production technology, and applications and
phthalate; PS, polystyrene; PP, polypropylene the life cycle assessment tool as applied to Ingeo. The 2003 data was
based on the plant design.
Abstract In 2007 NatureWorks published new life cycle inventory data,
Ingeo® polylactides are biopolymers with varied applications made updated with actual data available from the production facili-
entirely from annually renewable resources and produced since 2001 ties, in addition to newer data for the upstream and supporting
by NatureWorks LLC at a 140 000 tonne/yr facility in Blair, Nebraska, processes.2 This 2007 paper also gave a more accurate description of
USA. NatureWorks’ objectives include eliminating nonrenewable energy the Ingeo manufacturing system and the calculation procedure used; in
use and the emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as minimizing non- addition, NatureWorks reported on the use of renewable energy
valuable co-products and reducing water use. These objectives are being certificates based on wind power and the resulting impact on the
accomplished through continual improvement of the Ingeo production calculated eco-profile.
technology. This current paper gives the latest life cycle inventory data based
Since 1998, NatureWorks and Cargill Inc. have worked to develop on new lactic acid production technology that was implemented in
technology improvements, especially in the area of lactic acid produc- December 2008. Further, the use of Renewable Energy Certificates is
tion. In December 2008, new lactic acid production technology was no longer included in the reported eco-profile. Given these significant
implemented that resulted in a reduced environmental footprint. This changes, a new eco-profile has been developed and is reported here.

212 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010

 PEER REVIEW

The data provided in this report is only valid for Ingeo (polylac- vide detailed inventory data sufficient for use by LCA practitioners
tides produced by NatureWorks in Blair, Nebraska, USA) and not for interested in the use of Ingeo resin for specific products.
polylactide production in general. The life cycle inventory data for Despite the developments in the first decade of this new century,
polylactides that might be produced elsewhere will be different due Ingeo production is still in its infancy, compared with that of traditional
to different raw materials (sugar or starch source) and raw material polymers, and there is yet great potential to further reduce its environ-
production practices, different technologies for processing these raw mental footprint. This paper will give an outlook into the future, as well.
materials, different fermentation and polymerization technology, and This paper describes and assesses the life cycle performance of the
different background data for electricity/fuel mixes used. Ingeo 2009 manufacturing system. This case represents the 2009 cradle-
For these reasons, the specific nomenclature “Ingeo” is used in this to-pellet Ingeo production system as described in Section 2. The data
paper to clearly delineate wherever NatureWorks polylactide biopoly- represents an annual production of 140 000 tonnes of Ingeo and is valid
mer is being referenced. from the cradle to the polymer factory (exit) gate in Blair, Nebraska.
Up-to-date life cycle inventory data is needed by retailers, brand
owners, and authorities to provide better insight into the performance 2 The Ingeo production system
of the Ingeo production system and to allow comparison with the The simplified flow diagram for the manufacture of virgin Ingeo
petrochemical-based polymers. The objective of this paper is to pro- production is schematized in Figure 1.

Electricity Carbon dioxide

Fertilizers Irrigation water

Corn production,
Natural gas harvesting & drying Herbicides
+ transport to
Diesel corn wet mill Insecticides

Gasoline Seed corn

Propane Limestone
Raw materials
from the earth Sulfur dioxide
Dextrose
Carbon dioxide production Enzymes

Water Salts/acids

Fossil resources Natural gas Nutrients

Lactic acid
Air emissions
Steam production Acids & bases
Water emissions
Electricity
Gypsum mining
Solid waste
Water*
Lactide
Others production
(N2, compressed air,…) Thermal oxidizer

Polylactide Wastewater
production treatment

* Process water and tap-up water for cooling-water tower System boundary

Ingeo polylactide

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the manufacture of Ingeo polylactide biopolymers

© MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 6 NO. 4 • AUGUST 2010 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 213
PEER REVIEW

The cradle-to-factory-gate Ingeo production system is divided into After harvest, the corn grain is transported to a corn wet mill
five major steps: (CWM), where the starch is separated from the other components of
1. Corn production and transport of corn to the corn processing the corn kernel (proteins, fats, fibers, ash, and water) and hydrolyzed
wet mill to dextrose using enzymes. The dextrose solution is transported by
2. Corn processing and the conversion of starch into dextrose pipeline to Cargill’s lactic acid fermentation process, which is situ-
3. Conversion of dextrose into lactic acid ated adjacent to the CWM. The other products of the modeled CWM
4. Conversion of lactic acid into lactide are corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal, heavy steep water, and corn
5. Polymerization of lactide into Ingeo polymer pellets germ. To allocate all the inputs and outputs to these products, the
The primary inputs to these major steps are listed on the left and CWM production process was divided as far as possible into sub-
right of Figure 1. In the final eco-profile data, these primary inputs processes (11 processes were identified), and for each subprocess,
are traced back to the extraction of the raw materials from the allocation is based on the dry mass of the final and/or intermediate
earth. Only aggregated data has been provided to protect Cargill/ products.5 The data includes all relevant inputs for dextrose produc-
NatureWorks proprietary information. The process-level data as well tion such as the production and delivery of natural gas, electricity,
as the aggregated data were reviewed by Boustead Consulting.3 and steam, as well as the production of potable and cooling water,
The life cycle of Ingeo starts with corn (maize) production. All compressed air, chemicals (sulfur dioxide and calcium hydroxide),
free energy consumed by the corn plant comes from solar energy and enzymes.5
captured by photosynthesis. The basic stoichiometric equation for Lactic acid is produced by fermentation of dextrose received from
photosynthesis is: the CWM. The process, illustrated in Figure 2, combines dextrose and
light other media, adds a microbial inoculum, and produces crude lactic
H2O + CO2 ➞ (CH2O) + O2 acid. Prior to December 2008, the pH was controlled to near neutral
by the addition of calcium hydroxide. The lactic acid broth was then
In this equation, (CH2O) represents carbohydrate, such as sucrose acidified by adding sulfuric acid, resulting in the formation and
and starch. Therefore, all carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in the precipitation of gypsum. This process results in near stoichiometric
starch molecule or the final Ingeo molecule originated from water usage of lime and sulfuric acid, relative to the lactic acid produced,
and carbon dioxide. and subsequent production of gypsum. The gypsum was removed by
The data includes all the relevant inputs for corn production, such as filtration, and the lactic acid concentrated by evaporation.
production of corn seed, fertilizers, limestone, electricity, and fuels (natu- Elimination of these by-products has long been a goal of
ral gas, diesel, propane, and gasoline) used on the farm, the atmospheric NatureWorks/Cargill, and extensive research was carried out to
carbon dioxide utilization through photosynthesis, the irrigation water develop an improved process. In December 2008, new fermentation
applied to the cornfield, and the production of the herbicides and insec- technology was introduced, allowing operation of the fermentation at
ticides used to protect the corn. On the output side, emissions, including significantly lower pH, and thereby significantly reducing the use of
dinitrogen oxide, nitrogen oxides, nitrates, and phosphates, are taken calcium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, in turn resulting in significantly
into account. Production of the farm equipment (tractors and harvest lower quantities of gypsum.6,7,8 Also, less energy was required to drive
combines) used was investigated, but their contributions are negligible. the process. Small quantities of gypsum are still being produced,
The average life cycle data on corn production was collected from corn which are then used as soil conditioners and so replace mined gyp-
producers in the twenty-six counties in Nebraska and Iowa that tend to sum. A credit is given for the avoided gypsum mining, but the impact
supply corn to the corn wet mill that processes corn into dextrose syrup. of this is small compared to the total numbers. After final purifica-
These counties are situated on the borderline of Nebraska and Iowa.4 tion, the lactic acid enters the lactide/Ingeo manufacturing process.

Sulfuric
acid

Dextrose
& media Gypsum Purification
Pure
lactic acid
Acidulation Filtration

By-products
Fermentation Recycled
condensate Evaporation

Figure 2. NatureWorks lactic acid production process

214 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010

 PEER REVIEW

Ingeo is prepared through the polymerization of lactide to make process emissions (to air and water) of the on-site facility are
polylactide polymer in a continuous process, illustrated in Figure 3. included in the inventory.
In the first step, water is removed in a continuous condensation reac-
tion of aqueous lactic acid to produce low molecular weight prepoly- 3 Methods
mer. Next, the prepolymer is catalytically converted into the cyclic 3.1 ECO-PROFILES VERSUS LIFE CYCLE INVENTORIES
dimer, lactide, and vaporized. The lactide mixture is then purified by A full life cycle inventory starts with the extraction of raw mate-
distillation. Finally, high molecular weight Ingeo is produced using rials from the earth and covers all downstream processing until the
a ring-opening lactide polymerization. The process does not use any materials are eventually disposed of as waste back into the earth. Eco-
solvents. After the polymerization is complete, any remaining lactide profiles, of the type reported by the European plastics manufacturing
monomer is removed and recycled within the process.1,2,9 The polymer association, Plastics Europe, and NatureWorks, are cradle-to-gate
pellets are the final stage of the Ingeo eco-profiles. Packaging and rather than complete life cycle inventories. That is, the systems start
transportation to the customer are not included. with the extraction of raw materials from the earth and end with
A few additional remarks about the Ingeo manufacturing process polymer resins ready for dispatch to the converter.2
as given in Figure 1 are warranted.
• Steam is produced in a natural gas fired steam boiler located at 3.2 METHODOLOGY
the Cargill site. Make-up potable water is included in the inven- As a renewably derived source of plastics, Ingeo competes in the
tory and well as electricity use by the steam boiler. marketplace with polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS),
• The inventory distinguishes three types of water: irrigation polypropylene (PP), and other petrochemical-based plastics often
water used for corn production, process water used as a trans- referred to as “traditional plastics.” In response to customer demand,
portation medium, reaction medium, or for steam production, PlasticsEurope published a series of eco-profiles for traditional
and make-up water to compensate cooling tower losses. petrochemical-based polymers over the last twenty years.10 To allow
• The Ingeo production process is equipped with two thermal direct comparison with traditional polymers, NatureWorks undertook
oxidizers converting potential organic process emissions into the development of eco-profiles for Ingeo using the same methodol-
carbon dioxide and water. The natural gas consumption of the ogy,11 software, and core databases as used in the PlasticsEurope
thermal oxidizers is taken into account. analyses. In addition, the results are presented in the same format
• Dextrose and lactic acid manufacturing are water-based pro- used by Boustead Consulting, the organization that calculated these
cesses. A part of the water is recycled internally and a part is eco-profiles for the European plastics industry. All the calculations
drained, after purification in a wastewater treatment facility, have been carried out in accordance with the requirements of ISO
to the surface water (river). Electricity consumption and the 14040 and 14044.

Recycle

Water Water

Devolitilizer

Aqueous Lactide reactor

lactic acid

Crystallizer
Lactide Polymer
distillation reactor
Prepolymer reactor
Recycle Dryer

PLA pellets

Figure 3. NatureWorks lactide formation and polylactide polymerization process

© MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 6 NO. 4 • AUGUST 2010 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 215
PEER REVIEW

3.3 DATA SOURCES resent the local conditions, and a smaller pool would not reflect
Average corn-growing data from 26 counties on the borderline of the interconnected nature of the electrical grid.) Data for the most
Nebraska and Iowa, the most likely sources of corn for the Cargill important process chemicals was obtained from direct suppliers
corn wet mill, was collected and used for corn production.4 Data for whenever possible or taken from the Eco-invent database.13 Data for
a modern corn wet mill representative of the Cargill corn wet mill the production of coal, gas, and other fuels and chemicals used in
that supplies NatureWorks was compiled and used for the dextrose smaller quantities was taken from the core database of the Boustead
production step.5 Data for the lactic acid, lactide, and Ingeo produc- model.12 All data sources including for corn growing, corn milling,
tion was developed within NatureWorks. The electricity data was lactic acid, and lactide and Ingeo production, was peer reviewed by
obtained from the Boustead core database12 and is valid for the Ian Boustead of Boustead Consulting.3,14
Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) covering the US states of
North Dakota, Nebraska, and Minnesota, the Canadian province of 4 Results
Manitoba, and parts of the states of Wisconsin, Montana, Iowa, and 4.1 ECO-PROFILE FOR INGEO 2009 PRODUCTION SYSTEM
South Dakota. (The North American electricity grid is divided into The eco-profile data for Ingeo 2009 currently implemented tech-
10 power regions in which the electric companies work together to nology (CIT) is found in Tables 1–7. All data is given per kilogram
ensure reliable and adequate power supplies by the various intercon- of Ingeo (at factory gate). Table 1 gives the gross primary fuels and
nected local utilities. MAPP is one of these 10 regional reliability feedstock for the Ingeo 2009 production system. The biomass entry in
councils. As a regional power pool [and “balancing area”], it is the the Feedstock energy column (24.97 MJ) represents the corn intake.
unit of choice for estimating the emissions basis of the electrical The energy content of corn is 16.3 MJ/kg corn. Table 2 shows the
generation in the area. A larger pool would not adequately rep- energy data expressed as masses of fuels. Table 3 shows the demand

Table 1. Gross primary fuels and feedstock required to produce 1 kg of Ingeo 2009
Fuel production Energy content of Fuel use in Feedstock Total
& delivery energy delivered fuel transport energy energy
Fuel type (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ)
Coal 11.8048 4.8221 0.0097 0.0000 16.6366
Oil 0.1362 1.8946 0.4965 0.2132 2.7406
Gas 1.7609 18.1091 0.0120 0.0971 19.9791
Hydro 0.4694 0.1865 0.0010 0.0000 0.6568
Nuclear 2.7637 1.1117 0.0020 0.0000 3.8774
Lignite 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004
Wood 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sulfur 0.0000 0.0140 0.0000 0.0578 0.0718
Biomass (solid) 0.0016 0.0007 0.0000 24.9658 24.9681
Hydrogen 0.0000 0.0477 0.0000 0.0000 0.0477
Recovered energy 0.0000 –1.1546 -0.0001 0.0000 –1.1547
Unspecified 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Peat 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Geothermal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Solar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Wave / tidal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Biomass (liquid / gas) 0.0003 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005
Industrial waste 0.0029 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0043
Municipal waste 0.0022 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0032
Wind 0.0016 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0024
TOTALS 16.9438 25.0353 0.5211 25.3340 67.8342

216 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010

 PEER REVIEW

Table 2. Gross primary fuels used to produce 1 kg Table 4. Gross raw materials required to produce 1 kg
Ingeo 2009, expressed as mass Ingeo 2009
Input Raw material Input in mg
Fuel type (mg) Barytes 73
Crude oil 60 300
Bauxite 7
Gas / condensate 378 876 Sodium chloride (NaCl) 81 716
Coal 577 430 Chalk (CaCO3) 101 703
Metallurgical coal 182 Clay 28 593
Lignite 26 Fe 451
Peat 1 Pb 3
Wood 1 Limestone (CaCO3) 35 108
Sand (SiO2) 10 289
Phosphate as P2O5 7 454
S (elemental) 7 756
Table 3. Gross water consumption required for
Dolomite 6
production of 1 kg Ingeo 2009
O2 180
Use for Use for
processing cooling Totals N2 9 152
Source (mg) (mg) (mg) Air 285 690
Public supply 16  495  064 7  205  585 23  700  649 Bentonite 6
River canal 1  831 461  049 462  880 Gravel 2
Sea 1  062 12  149 13  211 Olivine 4
Well 48  240 0 48  240 Potassium chloride (KCl) 14 802
Unspecified 21  341  920 3  220  774 24  562  694 S (bonded) 33 038

TOTALS 37  888  117 10  899  557 48  787  674 Biomass (including water) 314

Land use (x E-06 m2 ) 1 727 693

Table 5. Gross solid waste associated with the production of 1 kg Ingeo 2009
From From From From
fuel production fuel use transport process Totals
Emission (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
Plastics 0 0 0 1 000 1 000
Unspecified refuse 601 0 0 0 601
Mineral waste 108 0 241 18 402 18 751
Slags and ash 60 239 378 94 24 60 735
Mixed industrial 393 0 12 1 381 1 785
Regulated chemicals 734 0 398 12 1 145
Unregulated chemicals 557 0 0 166 723
Construction waste 0 0 0 2 2
Waste returned to mine 113 106 0 8 5 113 119
Tailings 4 0 1 247 23 1 274
Landfilled waste (temporary; process) 0 0 0 68 374 68 374

© MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 6 NO. 4 • AUGUST 2010 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 217
PEER REVIEW

Table 6. Gross air emissions associated with the production of 1 kg Ingeo 2009
From fuel From From From From Totals
production fuel use transport process biomass (mg)
Emission (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
Dust (PM10) 8  689.0578 111.6328 14.6853 26.6177 0.0000 8  841.9936
CO 2  486.9978 1  179.5275 212.0878 288.7774 0.0000 4  167.3905
CO2 1  652  571.5239 973  322.8604 27  884.1073 113  347.5041 -1  940  393.0000 826  733.7867
SOX as SO2 6  026.5399 1  148.1782 68.2946 158.4648 0.0000 7  401.4775
H2S 0.0045 0.0000 0.0303 0.1136 0.0000 0.1485
Mercaptan 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004
NO X as NO2 6  263.6776 1  803.6244 366.4538 3  877.4970 0.0000 12  311.2529
NH3 0.0003 0.0000 0.0006 3.9538 0.0000 3.9547
Cl2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.1603 0.0000 0.1604
HCl 345.4046 2.6515 0.0430 0.1003 0.0000 348.1994
F2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
HF 12.7868 0.1048 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 12.8964
Hydrocarbons not specified elsewhere 783.4089 310.6057 58.9180 11.0203 0.0000 1  163.9528
Organics 0.0003 0.0000 0.0007 0.7001 0.0000 0.7011
Pb compounds as Pb
+
0.0001 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005
Hg compounds as Hg
+
0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
Metals not specified elsewhere 0.0302 0.6090 0.0004 0.0012 0.0000 0.6407
H2SO4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0138 0.0000 0.0138
N2O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 370.7019 0.0000 370.7019
H2 0.9648 0.0031 0.0043 89.4332 0.0000 90.4053
Dichloroethane (DCE) C2H4Cl2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002
Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) 0.0010 0.0000 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0032
Organochlorine not specified elsewhere 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.2268 0.0000 10.2268
CH4 12  592.8293 485.9704 7.5065 21.0358 0.0000 13 107.3420
Aromatic HC not specified elsewhere 0.2711 0.0000 0.5755 0.1489 0.0000 0.9954
NMVOC 0.0033 2.6748 33.7795 6.7811 0.0000 43.2388
Methylene chloride CH2Cl2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002
As compounds as As
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
Zn compounds as Zn
+
0.0002 0.0000 0.0005 0.0002 0.0000 0.0009
Se+ compounds as Se 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
Ni compounds as Ni
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0004
Fe compounds as Fe
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003
V+ compounds as V 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0016 0.0000 0.0016
Al compounds as Al
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 –2.1325 0.0000 -2.1325
B+ compounds as B 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0007
Manganese (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
Corn dust (biomass) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 76.3641 76.3641
Tin (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001

218 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010

 PEER REVIEW

Table 6. Gross air emissions associated with the production of 1 kg Ingeo 2009 continued
From fuel From From From From Totals
production fuel use transport process biomass (mg)
Emission (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
Barium (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0457 0.0000 0.0457
Bromine (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005
Cyanide (unspecified; process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
Helium (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496
VOC (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0318 0.0000 0.0318
Dust (PM 2.5; process) 0.0000 1.9399 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9399
Dust (unspecified; transport) 0.0000 0.0938 8.3932 0.0000 0.0000 8.4869
Particles (<2.5 µm; process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 –13.3104 0.0000 –13.3104
Particles (>10 µm; process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 –138.7362 0.0000 –138.7362
Particles (<10 µm, >2.5 µm; process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 –124.7004 0.0000 –124.7004

Table 7. Gross emissions to water arising from the production of 1 kg Ingeo 2009
From fuel From From From Totals
production fuel use transport process (mg)
Emission (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
COD 0.9885 0.0000 2.9824 4  891.4365 4  895.4074
BOD 0.1473 0.0000 0.3459 2.2529 2.7461
Pb compounds as Pb
+
0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0004
Fe compounds as Fe
+
0.0058 0.0000 0.0132 12.5554 12.5745
Na+ compounds as Na 0.1596 0.0000 0.1334 616.2524 616.5454
Acid as H+ 0.6078 0.0000 0.0061 0.0211 0.6349
NO 3
—
0.0147 0.0000 0.0001 1  226.8562 1  226.8711
Metals not specified elsewhere 0.1507 0.0000 0.0050 0.0352 0.1910
Ammonium compounds as NH4+ 0.6407 0.0000 0.0138 0.0432 0.6977
Cl —
0.3407 0.0000 53.4255 1  200.4322 1  254.1985
CN —
0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
F —
0.0006 0.0000 0.4996 0.0085 0.5087
S+ sulfides as S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved organics (nonhydrocarbon) 0.2451 0.0000 0.0006 0.0608 0.3066
Suspended solids 144.3669 0.0000 24.2500 2  874.4069 3  043.0238
Detergent/oil 0.0063 0.0000 0.0144 0.0451 0.0658
Hydrocarbons not specified elsewhere 0.0604 0.0082 0.0116 0.1897 0.2699
Organochlorine not specified elsewhere 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0018
Dissolved chlorine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0018
Phenols 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0060 0.0072
Dissolved solids not specified elsewhere 0.0304 0.0000 0.0560 3.4520 3.5384
P compounds as P
+
0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 12.1723 12.1772

© MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 6 NO. 4 • AUGUST 2010 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 219
PEER REVIEW

Table 7. Gross emissions to water arising from the production of 1 kg Ingeo 2009 continued
From fuel From From From Totals
production fuel use transport process (mg)
Emission (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
Other nitrogen as N 0.1364 0.0000 0.0050 133.0750 133.2164
Other organics not specified elsewhere 0.0003 0.0000 0.0006 0.3167 0.3175
SO42– 0.0214 0.0000 0.0453 137.1732 137.2400
Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
K compounds as K
+
0.0001 0.0000 0.0003 0.1726 0.1730
Ca+ compounds as Ca 0.0004 0.0000 0.0009 128.3759 128.3772
Mg+ compounds as Mg 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.9485 0.9487
Cr compounds as Cr
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0018
ClO3— 0.0002 0.0000 0.0006 0.0601 0.0609
BrO 3
—
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003
TOC 0.0003 0.0000 1.2465 9.9312 11.1780
Al+ compounds as Al 0.0002 0.0000 0.0005 0.0127 0.0134
Zn compounds as Zn
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 0.0006
Cu+ compounds as Cu 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004
Ni compounds as Ni
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003
2—
CO 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0191 0.2461 0.2652
As+ compounds as As 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
Mn compounds as Mn
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0036 0.0037
Ba+ compounds as Ba 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010
Sr compounds as Sr
+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0037 0.0037
Ca (process)
2+
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 251.8245 251.8245
PO43— (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 0.0316
Chromium (III) (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010
Chromium (VI) (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
Chlorine, dissolved (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0007
Fluorine (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
Neutral salts (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0033 0.0033
Halogenated organics (process) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0101 0.0101

for water. The entry “Unspecified” in the “Use for processing column” The data in Tables 1–7 give the gross eco-profile data per kg Ingeo
mainly represents the irrigation water use during corn production. 2009. Figure 4 gives the gross energy use per production segment.
Table 4 shows the raw material requirements. The bottom entry gives The gross nonrenewable energy use (for process and feedstock) from
“Land use”; the net land use is 1.7 m2/kg Ingeo. Table 5 shows the the cradle to the polymer factory gate is 42.2 MJ/kg Ingeo 2009.
solid waste generated. The bottom entry, “Landfilled waste,” is a tem- For the correct interpretation of this figure, an example is offered:
porary landfilled waste stream that will be incinerated with energy The gross nonrenewable energy use for the lactic acid production
recovery, starting 2 to 3 years from now. The gypsum produced is segment is 20.57 MJ/kg Ingeo. This 20.57 MJ represents the total or
sold for soil conditioning and is replacing mined gypsum in the mar- gross energy used to produce and deliver the nonrenewable energy
ketplace. A credit is given equal to the avoided gypsum mining. Table required (electricity, natural gas, and steam) in the lactic acid produc-
6 shows the air emissions, and Table 7 the emissions to water. The tion process, and the energy required to produce and deliver all kinds
interpretation of these tables is described by Boustead.11 of operating supplies (water, acids, nutrients, compressed air), as well

220 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010

 PEER REVIEW

30

25

20
Gross energy use
[MJ/kg Ingeo] 15

10

0
Corn Dextrose Lactic acid Polymer
Nonrenewable used as process energy 3.85 5.00 20.30 12.69
Renewable used as process energy 0.01 0.08 0.39 0.18
Nonrenewable used as feedstock 0.03 0.00 0.27 0.07
Renewable used as feedstock 24.97 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 4. Gross energy use per production segment

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

Gross GHG
emissions 0.00
[CO2 eq/kg Ingeo]
-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00
Corn Dextrose Lactic acid Polymer
GWP(100 year): gross emissions 0.37 0.36 1.53 0.92
GWP(100 year): net harnassed -1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 5. Gross greenhouse gas take-up and emissions per production segment

© MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 6 NO. 4 • AUGUST 2010 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 221
PEER REVIEW

60 production technology, with the objectives of

MJ nonrenewable energy/kg Ingeo

50 developing a process with higher yields, bet-

50 ter economics, lower carbon footprint, lower
42 energy use, lower water use, and less waste.
40 During this period, a package of technology
35
improvements was developed, part of which
30 were implemented in December 2008. The
changes implemented in lactic acid production
20 technology led to an update of the Ingeo 2005
eco-profile, called Ingeo 2009 (often, again,
10 also referred to as Ingeo 2009 CIT). The eco-
profile of Ingeo 2009 is given in this paper.
0 However, more technology improvements are
Ingeo since 2005 Ingeo 2009: currently Ingeo Target
implemented technology possible in the Blair facilities, and with fur-
ther investments, the environmental footprint
Figure 6. Cradle to polymer factory gate nonrenewable energy use for the various Ingeo (expressed as the eco-profile) can be further
production systems reduced. This eco-profile is called Ingeo Target.
There are various routes to reach this target,
depending on technological and economic
2.5 parameters. A comparison of these three Ingeo
eco-profiles is given in Figures 6, 7.
2.0
2 To calculate the total greenhouse gas emis-
sions, the following global warming potential
kg CO2 eq/kg Ingeo

(GWP(100 year) ) values were used: carbon diox-

1.5 1.3 ide = 1; methane = 23, and nitrous oxide = 296.
(The Global Warming Potential, or GWP, is a
1 measure of how much a given mass of green-
0.8
house gas is estimated to contribute to global
warming or global climate change. It is a rela-
0.5
tive scale that compares the gas in question
to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide
0 [whose GWP is, by convention, equal to 1]. A
Ingeo since 2005 Ingeo 2009: currently Ingeo Target GWP is calculated over a specific time interval;
implemented technology
the commonly used interval is 100 years.)
Figure 7. Cradle to polymer factory gate greenhouse gas emissions for the various Ingeo There are many more potential improve-
production systems ments. One can switch from agricultural crops
(starch- or sugar-based) to agricultural waste
stream (cellulosics-based feedstock) as a source
as the energy required for processing the air and water emissions for the required sugar.1 As new plants are built, the energy supply
generated by the lactic acid production facility. (electricity and heating needs) can be optimized by installing, for
Figure 5 gives the gross greenhouse gas take-up (1.94 kg CO2 eq/ example, biomass-fueled heat/power installations. Wind power can
kg Ingeo of which 95% is build into the polymer backbone) and also be an attractive alternative. In the meantime, process optimi-
the gross greenhouse gas emissions (total 3.18 kg CO2 eq/kg Ingeo) zation of lactic acid and polymer production will be continued as
per production segment, resulting in a net GHG emission of 1.24 well. Exactly how these improvements will affect the overall life
(rounded to 1.3) kg CO2 eq/kg Ingeo. cycle inventory in the future cannot be meaningfully projected at
this point, but it is clear that fossil energy requirements, greenhouse
4.2 THE INGEO 2009 ECO-PROFILE IN PERSPECTIVE gas emissions, and other indicators will be further reduced in next-
NatureWorks has produced Ingeo biopolymers since 2001 in its generation Ingeo production facilities.
large-scale facility in Blair, Nebraska. Between 2001 and 2005, data
was collected to calculate the first eco-profile. This eco-profile was 4.3 BENCHMARKING ON POLYMER PELLET BASIS.
called Ingeo 2005 (or PLA5) and was the basis for the 2007 publica- Basically, LCA should always take a full “cradle to grave” perspec-
tion.2 Since 1998, NatureWorks has been developing new lactic acid tive, but since there are so many different polymers, numerous differ-

222 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010

 PEER REVIEW

Ingeo Target 35
Ingeo 2009 - current technology 42
Ingeo in 2005 50
Polyvinylchloride (suspension) 59
Polypropylene 73
Low-density polyethylene 77
Polyethylene terephthalate (amorphous) 80
Polyethylene terephthalate (SSP) 82
Polystyrene (HIPS/GPPS avg) 87
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer 95
Polycarbonate 113
Nylon 6 120
Nylon 66 138
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
From cradle to polymer factory gate [MJ/kg polymer]

Figure 8. Benchmarking for nonrenewable energy use

Ingeo Target 0.8

Ingeo 2009 - current technology 1.3
Ingeo in 2005 2.0
Polyvinylchloride (suspension) 1.9
Polypropylene 1.9
Low-density polyethylene 2.1
Polyethylene terephthalate (amorphous) 3.2
Polyethylene terephthalate (SSP) 3.4

Polystyrene (HIPS/GPPS avg) 3.4

Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer 3.8

Polycarbonate 7.6

Nylon 6 9.1

Nylon 66 7.9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
From cradle to polymer factory gate [kg CO2 eq/kg polymer]

Figure 9. Benchmarking for greenhouse gas emissions

© MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 6 NO. 4 • AUGUST 2010 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 223
PEER REVIEW

 oustead I. Review of data for the eco-profile of polylactic acid (PLA): A report
3. B
ent production locations (with different fuels mixes), many different for NatureWorks LLC. Boustead Consulting Ltd. (2 January 2010). Downloadable
applications, as well as different end-of-life options, it is infeasible to at http://www.natureworksllc.com/the-ingeo-journey.aspx
perform all these studies. There is thus a need to adopt some simpli-
4. V ink ETH, Hettenhaus JR, Dale BE, Kim S, and Fairchild D. The life cycle of
fications. Benchmarking on a “polymer pellet” basis can be done and NatureWorks® polylactide, corn production inventory data and corn production
will give a relative good first impression as to how Ingeo biopolymer eco-profile. Unpublished study (16 August 2004)
performs given that: 5. V ink ETH, Hettenhaus JR, O’Connor RP, Dale BE, Tsobanakis P, and Stover D. The
• in many applications (packaging, bottles), the polymer weight life cycle of NatureWorks® polylactide: The production of dextrose via corn wet
is similar milling. Unpublished study (8 December 2006)
• in most packaging LCAs, the contribution of specific impact cat- 6. Veldhouse J et al. The commercialization of a low pH lactic acid fermentation
egories is dominated by the processes up through the polymer process: Lessons learned and looking forward to cellulosic products. In: Society
of Industrial Microbiology – RAFT VIII (presentation). San Diego, California, USA
pellet production (10 November 2009). http://sim.confex.com/sim/raft8/techprogram/P13192.HTM
• energy requirements for conversion are relatively small and do
7. Suominen P et al. Development of a robust yeast biocatalyst for low pH lactic
not differ to a large extent
acid and cellulosic ethanol fermentation. In: 31st Symposium on Biotechnology
The recovery or final disposal route can cause (very significant) for Fuels and Chemicals, Society of Industrial Microbiology (presentation). San
differences between polymers, and these must be accounted for when Francisco, California, USA (3 May 2009). http://www.simhq.org/meetings/
sbfc2009/program/09SBFC-oralabstracts.pdf
completing an LCA.
Figures 8 and 9 give the benchmarking results for Ingeo biopoly- 8. McMullin T et al. Biotechnology to the bottom line: Low pH lactic acid
mers compared with a selection of fossil-based polymers. The data for production at commercial scale. In: SIM Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Society
of Industrial Microbiology (presentation). Toronto, Ontario, Canada (28 July
these polymers is being published by PlasticsEurope.10 2009). http://sim.confex.com/sim/2009/techprogram/P12883.HTM
 ruber P and O’Brien M. Polylactides NatureWorksTM PLA. In: Biopolymers in 10
9. G
Acknowledgment volumes, Volume 4, Polyesters III, Applications and Commercial Products. Doi Y
During the development process of the current Ingeo eco-profile, and Steinbüchel A (eds), 235-249. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2002)
Dr. Ian Boustead of Boustead Consulting reviewed all the process-level 10. PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium). http://www.lca.plasticseurope.org
data which was the basis for the current Ingeo eco-profile. The final
review report may be downloaded from the NatureWorks website.3  oustead I. Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry – Methodology.
11. B
Plastics Europe. (March 2005). http://www.lca.plasticseurope.org
REFERENCES 12. T he Boustead Model — Version 5.0. Boustead Consulting Ltd. (Horsham, West
1. V ink ETH, Rábago KR, Glassner DA, and Gruber PR. Applications of life cycle Sussex, United Kingdom). http://www.boustead-consulting.co.uk
assessment to NatureWorksTM polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab
80, 403-419 (2003) 13. Ecoinvent. Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories. http://www.ecoinvent.ch

2. V ink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley RJ, and O’Connor RP. The eco-profiles 14. Boustead I. Peer-review report. (Boustead Consulting Ltd, Horsham, West
for current and near future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Sussex, Great Britain). 19 January 2006. Downloadable at http://www.nature-
Biotechnol 3, 1, 58-81 (2007) worksllc.com/the-ingeo-journey.aspx

224 INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AUGUST 2010