Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Assessing energy performance of bio-based succinic acid production

using LCA
Hassan I. Moussa, Ali Elkamel*, Steven B. Young
University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bio-succinic acid (bio-SAC) is a promising industrial alternative to the currently used petroleum coun-
Received 17 October 2015 terparts. This is mainly due to its energy and environmental performances, which were both, assessed
Received in revised form using a cradle-to-gate LCA approach. The foreground data used in this LCA were based on real production
2 August 2016
data from a facility in Louisiana, USA that uses a non-food crop feedstock. Results indicate that electricity
Accepted 22 August 2016
use and heat generation were identified to have the biggest impact on the energy and environmental
Available online 24 August 2016
performances of bio-SAC and to have the highest improvements potential. In addition, bio-SAC has lower
GWP and non-ren CED values in comparison to petroleum-based SAC by 385% and 1045%, respectively.
Keywords:
Energy performance
Scenario analyses indicate that using an energy intensive feedstock (e.g., dextrose) instead of sorghum
Succinic acid will have an adverse impact on bio-SAC GWP and non-ren CED.
Bio-based © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Life cycle assessment
Global warming potential
Cumulative energy demand

1. Introduction
The interest of different industrial sectors in biomass and bio-
based materials is mainly due to the increased attention on
climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation,
the future of energy supply, air quality and industrial technological
advancements (Bradley and Bradburn, 2010; Wood and Layzell,
2003).
The general assumption is that bio-based materials are “envi-
ronmentally superior” to their petroleum-based counterparts, at
least from a GHG emissions and non-ren fossil CED perspectives.
However, in addition to GHG emissions and non-ren fossil CED,
there are other impact categories linked to water intake, eutro-
phication and acidification that play key roles in evaluating the
environmental performance of a product (Goedkoop et al., 2010;
Weiss et al., 2012; Mila
i Canals et al., 2011). This paper will focus
on the impacts of energy (electricity and heat) on the overall per-
formance of bio-based materials.
It is essential to acknowledge that the parameters on bio-based
materials vary as a result of type, quantity, quality, and location of
the biomass used, as well as its intended use in the production
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: h2moussa@uwaterloo.ca (H.I. Moussa), aelkamel@uwaterloo.
ca (A. Elkamel).
process. For this reason, it is vital to have a data system that pro-
vides precise and reliable information on the availability, environ-
mental profiles and impacts of bio-based feedstocks and materials
(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2008). This body of information
would be broadly useful as biomass is used for the production of
bio-fuels (bio-ethanol and biodiesel), biomaterials for food pack-
aging and bio-chemicals like bio-SAC, bio-polymers, and rein-
forcement materials.
Though the environmental advantages are largely unclear, bio-
based materials are gaining prominence due to the strong sup-
port by governmental policies, environmental regulations, aware-
ness, and the potential to create jobs. This is also motivated by
economic (e.g., price fluctuation of petroleum counterparts), in-
ternational security and political disputes in oil-exporting coun-
tries, and natural disasters related issues. Additionally, industrial
leadership, technological advancements, and positive feedback
from end-of-use industries have increased the demand and
acceptance of bio-based materials.
Succinic acid (SAC) is a promising C4 versatile building block that
is widely used as an intermediate in chemical industries around the
world. The global SAC market is predicted to grow 18.7% annually
between the years 2011 and 2016 (Markets and Markets, 2016). In
2010, Europe and North America accounted for 66% of the global
SAC market, while it is expected that China and India will dominate
demand in Asia-Pacific markets “in the near future” (Markets and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.104
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
762 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769
Markets, 2016). The majority of the global supply of SAC is pet-
rochemically produced, and currently less than 5% is bio-based
(Gallezot, 2012; Song and Lee, 2009; Wan et al., 2008). A bio-SAC
acid with identical chemical and physical properties and perfor-
mance to petroleum-based SAC can be produced using an entirely
different bio-based chemical process and routes providing a unique
opportunity for analysis from a more sustainable production
perspective. Growth in production of bio-based SAC is projected to
grow given technological and economic advancements, based on
pilot scale production facilities by industry leaders such as Bio-
Amber, Myriant Corporation, DSM and Roquette and BASF and
Purac (Hammerschlag, 2006; Gallezot, 2012).
1.1. Problem statement and objectives
This paper asks “how different energy systems influence the
environmental profiles of products and production systems?” The
question is addressed by looking at a specific C4 chemical building
block (bio-SAC) produced in North America.
The specific objectives of this paper are:
1. Calculate the facility specific energy consumed (SEC).
2. Quantify the potential life cycle environmental impacts (GWP,
non-ren CED and waste heat) of bio-SAC that are associated with
the use of different energy mixes (electricity and heat).
3. Identify the inputs (materials and energy streams) that have the
greatest impacts on the environmental profile of bio-SAC pro-
duction process.
4. Discuss potential improvement opportunities in the energy
management system of the product under study.
1.2. Energy in industrial processes
Energy is used in activities across almost all industrial processes
and is considered the main reason for scaling up production to its
current scale (Upadhyaya, 2010). The choice of energy sources, their
emissions, and environmental profiles, are often of great impact on
the results of energy and environmental management studies
(Collet et al., 2011; Mirabella et al., 2013). Over the last decades, the
global standards of living were positively impacted by the tech-
nological efficiency and economic prosperity as a result of the in-
dustrial growth (KPMG, 2010; Euler Hermes, 2013; ExxonMobil,
2014). However, many adverse environmental-related issues were
caused too (Upadhyaya, 2010; Bade and Parkin, 2013).
A report by ExxonMobil (2014) indicates that chemical in-
dustries worldwide are responsible for 50% of electricity and 30% of
primary energy (fuel and feedstock) of global consumption. These
numbers are projected to increase as the production of petro-
chemicals is expected to double in the next 25 years. However, the
energy efficiency1 and intensity of chemical production outputs are
projected to improve due to new technological advancements
(ExxonMobil, 2014). The result is better economic efficiency and
lower cost per units produced, while maintaining the production
rate and quality (Accenture, 2012; Bade and Parkin, 2013). Ac-
cording to studies by Cefic (2014), KPMG (2010) and Nyboer and
Bennett (2014) the energy efficiency of the chemical industry in
the EU, USA and Canada has improved by 49%, 50% and 59%,
respectively in the last two decades. While, the associated GHG
emissions were reduced by 23%.
Collet et al. (2011) and Pilz et al. (2010) indicate that electricity
1 2
The ratio of the desired energy output for a specific task or service to the energy
input for the given energy conversion process (Blanco et al., 2013, p. 36).
mix in particular non-renewable fossil energy used in the pro-
duction chain might be a potential factor for industries to consider
toward improving the energy and environmental performance of
bio-based materials and their production processes. Generally,
electricity used in bio-based chemicals production systems was
found to have an influential impact on the environmental profiles
of these chemicals (Haufe and Carus, 2011; La Rosa et al., 2013;
Khoo et al., 2010). However, there are potential for further im-
provements through enhancements on energy consumption
(electricity and heat) and efficiency of the production process. The
energy efficiency and environmental performance of chemical
processes in general are a function of modern and innovative
production technologies that use renewable energies and sources
that may help in reducing energy demand (Mata et al., 2003; Patt
and Banholzer, 2009).
A study by the US Department of United States Department of
Energy (2004) indicated that in chemical processes, substantial
amounts of energy inputs are released as waste heat emissions to
air, water and soil. Bai (2010) and BCS Incorporated (2010) esti-
mated these amounts to be between 20 and 50% of energy inputs.
Baker and Lepech (2009) as cited by Bundela and Chawla (2010)
identified two general potential environmental impacts of waste
heat. First, the impacts of energy use; secondly, the impacts of
several pollutants (chemicals and particles) contained in waste heat
streams. Decreasing the waste heat released into the eco-system
represents an opportunity for the reduction of energy demand
and the environmental impacts associated with its use (Huijbregts
et al., 2006; BCS Incorporated, 2008). Likewise, Zhang et al. (2013)
and Zhang and Akiyama (2009) indicated that improving the waste
heat recovery rate in a production system will probably reduce
energy consumption (electricity and heat generation) and the
associated GWP, mainly because it is an emission-free energy
source (BCS Incorporated, 2008; Huijbregts et al., 2006).
2. Materials and methodology
A life cycle assessment (LCA) is considered across a cradle-to-
gate2 system boundary to assess the impacts of using different
energy mixes (electricity and heat) and feedstocks across multiple
unit processes on the GWP and non-ren fossil CED of the produc-
tion process and the final product under study. To simplify the
calculations, the different unit processes in the production process
are considered as one and their environmental impacts are calcu-
lated as the sum of all units. The cradle-to-gate system boundary
ends when the bio-SAC is produced in a white crystalline solid
form, which is ready for subsequent use, but does not include any
down-stream activities (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). The results of the GWP
and non-ren Fossil CED are calculated using SimaPro, an LCA soft-
ware tool developed by PRe  Consultants.
The functional unit used in this LCA is 1 kg industrial grade
(99.5% wt) bio-SAC with specifications and physical properties
described in Table 1.
2.1. Life cycle inventory (LCI) data and sources
The background (up-stream) and foreground (process) data
used in this paper are a combination of primary, secondary and
tertiary data. Up-stream data were obtained from pre-existing
datasets in the LCA software and literature. Process level data on
raw materials, types, co-products, waste emissions and energy used
in the production process in the form of electricity and heat were
Cradle-to-gate LCA is a partial product life cycle from raw material extraction
(cradle) through materials processing and manufacturing to the factory gate.
 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769 763

Fig. 1. Simplified system boundary for the production of bio-SAC showing system expansion co-product treatment for AMS (Myriant Corporation, 2011).

Fig. 2. The production of bio-SAC process flow diagram (PFD) (both reaction and separation) (Myriant Corporation, 2013).

Table 1
Myriant bio-SAC specification and physical properties (Myriant Corporation, 2013).

Property Density Assay Moisture Ash Colour Lead content

Myriant Bio-SAC 1.57 g/cm3 99.5 wt % <0.5 wt% <0.025 wt% White crystalline Solid <2 ppm

provided by Myriant Corporation. LCI data used for the production fermentation process using biocatalysts that are capable of
of bio-SAC are shown in Table 2. consuming sugar from multiple sources. The result is a process with
higher yield and productivity in comparison with other known
biotechnologies (Myriant Corporation, 2011).
2.1.1. Bio-succinic acid production
Background processes used in the LCA model (bio-SAC pro-
Primary data on the production of bio-SAC were provided by
duction process) are based on the Ecoinvent and US LCI databases.
Myriant Corporation. Myriant is an industrial biotechnology com-
Electricity mix used was adjusted to fit the geographical location in
pany based in Quincy, Massachusetts with a stated mission to
Louisiana (see Table 3). Sorghum is selected and used by Myriant
become “a low-cost producer of high-value biochemicals” from
Corporation as a feedstock for the production of bio-SAC since it is
renewable and non-food crop feedstocks (Myriant Corporation,
classified as a non-food energy crop in the USA. Its cultivation
2011, p.1). Myriant business model targets bio-based products
process requires minimal agricultural management practices
that are functionally similar to petroleum counterparts. Myriant
(Myriant Corporation, 2011). Moreover, it is locally available and
manufactures a variety of chemical building blocks using patented
has low handling costs. In addition to sorghum, dextrose is used in a
technologies that are based on a single-step anaerobic
764 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769

Table 2 Table 4
Life cycle inventory (LCI) data for the production of 1 kg Bio-SAC (all foreground SERC 2011 electricity mix by fuel type (U.S. EIA, 2012).
data were provided by Myriant Corporation).
Hard Bituminous Lignite Natural Nuclear Hydro Wood Others
Input/Output materials and flows Quantity/Value coal coal coal gas

Co-product 32.7% 16.7% 0.2% 20.6% 23.8% 2.9% 1.4% 1.7%

Ammonium Sulfate 1.49Eþ00 kg
Avoided Product
Vapour Condensate 2.72Eþ00 kg
Input Materials represents electricity generated from wind, solar, pumped storage,
Sorghum Grains 1.66Eþ00 kg fuel oil, waste oil, non-biogenic gas, other renewables, other gases,
Dextrose 1.30E-02 kg residual petroleum, petroleum coke, and landfill gas. Data from the
Process Water 1.67Eþ00 kg
Form EIA-923 collected from a model-based sample of plants by the
Cooling Water 1.29Eþ00 m3
Ultrapure Water 25.30Eþ00 kg U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA) on a monthly
Electricity 2.67Eþ00 kW h basis and represent the final electricity generation data (U.S. EIA,
Natural Gas for steam 14.77Eþ00 MJ 2012).
Ammonium Liquid 0.41Eþ00 kg
Other input Materials 0.00Eþ00
Waste Emissions
Volatile Organic Compound 2.00E-03 kg
2.1.3. Heat (steam) generation for chemical processes
Carbon Monoxide 1.50E-02 kg Similar to electricity, heat is utilized in almost all industrial
Nitrogen Oxide 5.00E-03 kg processes and has a great influence on LCA results. In this paper, all
Particulates <10 mm 1.00E-03 kg unit processes use heat to help carry out the processes. For this
Ammonia 1.72E-04 kg
reason, a unit process for heat generation from natural gas as the
Lead 5.20E-06 kg
Sulfuric Acid 8.06E-05 kg energy source was created. To generate 1 MJ of heat 0.3636 kg of
Waste Water 1.10E-02 m3 cold water is required. However, the amount of input water was not
Cell Mass 8.20E-01 kg taken into account because steam is normally used in a closed loop
Sorghum Grain Waste 3.95E-01 kg system.
The sources of all background data (inputs, outputs and waste emissions) used in
the bio-SAC production model are given in Table 3.
2.1.4. Data quality
The transparency in communicating LCA data and emission
small amount for the production of bio-SAC. The dextrose GHG factors, as well as limitations that influence the quality of the
emissions value was assumed to be 0.62 kg CO2-eq per kg of generated results, is important for the credibility of any LCA study.
dextrose based on a study by Tsiropoulos et al. (2013). The foreground data used were assessed based on five semi-
quantitative data quality indicators for LCIs proposed by
2.1.2. Electricity Weidema and Wesnæs (1996). Data for this paper are measured
The electricity mix used is based on the South East Reliability and verified, thus reliable. The data timeline is less than three years,
Council (SERC) grid mix by fuel type obtained from the 2011 Form and the data are geographically representative of the area and fa-
EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report” as in Table 4. The elec- cility under study. Data on the technology used for the production
tricity mix is modelled to fit the geographical location of Myriant's of bio-SAC are from the industry, processes and materials under
bio-SAC production facility in Louisiana, USA. The fuel type “others” study, providing highly credible technological coverage.

Table 3
Sources of background data used in the production model of bio-SAC.

Input/Output materials and flows Data source

Co-product
Ammonium Sulfate Nemecek and K€
agi (2007)
Avoided Product
Vapour Condensate Sutter (2007)
Input Materials
Sorghum Grains Faist-Emmenegger et al. (2007a)
Dextrose Faist-Emmenegger et al. (2007b) and Tsiropoulos et al. (2013)
Process Water Ecoinvent
Cooling Water Ecoinvent
Ultrapure Water Sutter (2007).
Electricity US LCI database. Based on 2011 SERC electricity mix at grid by fuel type (U.S. EIA, 2012).
Natural Gas for steam Faist-Emmenegger et al. (2007a).
Ammonium Liquid Althaus et al. (2007).
Other input Materials Ecoinvent
Waste Emissions
Volatile Organic Compound Ecoinvent data on emissions to air, water, and final waste flows
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxide
Particulates <10 mm
Ammonia
Lead
Sulfuric Acid
Waste Water
Cell Mass
Sorghum Grain Waste
 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769
2.2. Co-product treatment
One scholarly debate in LCA concerns situations when multiple
products from a single process are co-produced. These outputs are
not perceived as waste but that have an economic or social function.
In LCA it is a challenge to distribute the environmental burdens of a
single process appropriately among its multiple co-products. This is
important as the allocation of system impacts among different
products can have a major influence on the environmental perfor-
mance of a production process. However, the ISO 14044 standard
recommends that allocation should be avoided, whenever possible,
and this recommendation is followed by many LCA studies (Moussa
et al., 2012; Kim and Dale, 2002; Wang et al., 1999).
At Myriant's Louisiana production facility, ammonium sulfate
(AMS) is produced as a significant co-product (1.4 kg per 1 kg of
bio-SAC produced). A system expansion approach is applied based
on information received from Myriant. All of the AMS produced is
sold locally as fertilizer for agricultural use and is functionally
equivalent to, and a direct substitute for, the petrochemically-
produced AMS in the regional market (Myriant Corporation,
2011). The AMS market in the USA is large3 and the AMS co-
product represents a small fraction of this market (Maxwell,
2004). This means that Myriant's operation does not affect mar-
ket dynamics; thus, system expansion is justified. An emission and
energy credit is assigned to the AMS co-product based on full
displacement. The production of bio-SAC is expanded to include the
use of the AMS co-product in agriculture (see Fig. 1). Looking at
Ecoinvent background data, it is clear that system expansion
approach and other allocation procedures were used to address the
co-products problem. These other co-products approaches and
procedures were not addressed or taken into consideration in this
study and are assumed to have a minor influence on the LCA results.
2.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
In this paper, pre-existing single-issue LCIA methods are used to
convert input and output data into environmental impact cate-
gories. The impact categories considered are global warming po-
tential (GWP 100a), non-renewable fossil energy demand (non-ren
CED) and waste heat.
The single-issue LCIA methods include cumulative energy de-
mand, a method used to calculate the non-ren fossil CED in the
production process (PRe  Consultants, 2010), the IPCC (GWP 100a)
2007 method, that was developed by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and uses the global warming potentials
(GWP 100a), measured in kg CO2-eq, of airborne emissions asso-
ciated with the production of a product or a service and accumu-
lates them in a “Climate Change” impact category (PRe  Consultants,
2010; Frischknecht et al., 2007). The IPCC 100a will be used as the
GHGs atmospheric lifetime, based on previous studies and reports
by Environment Canada (2011), U.S. EPA (2011), Gnansounou et al.
(2008) and Barker (2007). Waste heat as an inventory (elementary
flow) indicator, a method that is used to understand the energy and
environmental efficiency of the production process (Goedkoop
et al., 2008). SimaPro LCA tool records all the waste heat dis-
charged from the production process without differentiating be-
tween the sources of waste heat (Althaus et al., 2007).
2.4. Limitations and assumptions
The ISO 14040 (2006) standard mandates that all limitations of a
study are to be transparently defined and addressed, clearly and
3
Production is more than 3.3 million tonnes per year (Maxwell, 2004).
765
sufficiently presented in alignment with the goal and scope of the
study. The incompleteness or lack of reliable site and process-
specific data is considered to be one of the main limitations of LCI
and LCA applications. However, limitations of LCA are not limited to
availability or quality of data. Thus, assumptions are made to
address these limitations and to help carry out this study.
1. Transportation of raw materials to the production facility is not
considered. These activities are assumed negligible, suggesting
that transportation aspects of the chemical industry are minor
to the overall LCA study (Gironi and Piemonte, 2011; Zah et al.,
2007; Khoo et al., 2010; Franklin Associates, 2010).
2. Sorghum and soil carbon sequestration in Louisiana were not
considered as a “conservative assumption” due to the unavail-
ability of data specific to Louisiana.
3. The potential environmental impacts of bio-SAC plastic pack-
aging materials are not included and are assumed to be
negligible.
4. The production of the bio-catalyst used in the fermentation
process is not included and is assumed to be negligible.
3. Results
This section presents the energy and environmental results
using LCA cradle-to-gate method for 1 kg of bio-SAC.
3.1. Specific energy consumed (SEC)
SEC is defined as the energy consumption per unit of production
(kWh per kg). The SEC value for the production of bio-SAC is equal
to 1.2 kWh per kg.
3.2. Bio-SAC global warming potential
The LCIA results, using IPCC (GWP 100a) 2007 normalization
factors, show a GWP of 0.87 kg CO2-eq per 1 kg of bio-SAC. Fig. 3
illustrates that electricity use and natural gas combustion to
generate steam are the two biggest contributors to GWP, with
contributions of 40% and 23%, respectively. An analysis of the GWP
of the SERC electricity grid mix by fuel type used for the production
of bio-SAC indicates that coal and natural gas contribute the most to
GWP by 78% and 20%, respectively.
A negative value of GWP for AMS production (co-product) was
obtained due to the emission and energy credit assigned as a result
of the system expansion approach employed to address the co-
product problem. This means that the GHG emissions associated
1.95
2
1.11
0.87
1
0.49 0.47
-4.02
0
GWP (kg CO2- eq)
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
CulƟvaƟon of Ammonia Electricity Natural Gas Ammonium Others
Sorghum Liquid Sulphate
Fig. 3. Contribution of different raw materials/energy inputs to the total GWP asso-
ciated with the production of 1 kg bio-SAC.
766 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769

with the production of petroleum AMS are avoided and hence 25

24.8
18.4
subtracted from the GHG emissions generated during the produc- 16.9

tion of bio-SAC. 10 5.6

3.7
-62.5
Based on Fig. 2, it is important to understand which units

Non-ren Fossil CED (MJ)

contribute the most to total GWP value. This is important for -5

implementing energy management systems where needed the

most. The assessment shown in Fig. 4 reveals that service and -20

auxiliary units (OSBL: outside border limits) contribute the most to

-35
GWP by 57% followed by SAC production units by 42%.
-50
3.3. Bio-SAC non-renewable fossil CED
-65
CulƟvaƟon of Ammonia Liquid Electricity Natural Gas Ammonium Others
The non-ren Fossil CED required for the production of 1 kg bio- Sorghum Sulphate
SAC was calculated to be equal to 6.89 MJ. The contribution of major
unit processes to non-ren fossil CED shows that electricity use and Fig. 5. Contribution of different raw materials/unit processes to the non-renewable
combustion of natural gas contribute the most to non-ren fossil CED associated with the production of 1 kg bio-SAC.

CED, with 36% and 27% respectively (Fig. 5). A more in-depth
analysis on non-ren CED of the SERC electricity grid mix by fuel
25.75 28.20
type shows that coal and natural gas contribute the most to the 30.00

electricity CED, with a contribution of 70% and 28% respectively. 7.91

11.51 11.03
10.00 (99.95)
Fig. 5 shows a negative value of non-ren fossil CED for the AMS
co-product. This is due to the emission and energy credit assigned (10.00)
as a result of the system expansion approach employed to address
Waste Heat (MJ)
the co-product problem. Therefore, the non-ren CED required for (30.00)

the production of petroleum AMS is avoided and hence subtracted

(50.00)
from the non-ren CED required for the production of bio-SAC.
(70.00)
3.4. Bio-SAC waste heat
(90.00)

The amount of waste heat identified as “emissions to air, water

(110.00)
and soil” was calculated to be equal to 10.6 MJ per 1 kg of bio-SAC CulƟvaƟon of Ammonia liquid Electricity Natural gas Ammonium Others
(Fig. 6). Fig. 6 shows a negative value of waste heat generated as a Sorghum Sulphate

result of the production of bio-SAC. This is due to the emission and

energy credit assigned as a result of the system expansion approach
that was employed to address the AMS co-product problem.
Therefore, there is a subtraction of generated waste heat from the
production of petroleum-based AMS considered as an avoided
product and subtracted from the waste heat generated during the
production of bio-SAC. Since the AMS waste heat value is greater
than the combined contribution of all other unit processes, the
value of bio-SAC waste heat is negative (Fig. 6).
Additionally, it is fair to assume that most of the heat generated
in the production of bio-SAC is recovered, since the plant under
study is newly built using state of art technologies in regards to the
insulation of reactors and pipes and heat recovery systems (Myriant
Hydrolysis Seeds
7% 1% Main
FermentaƟon
Base / OSBL
System
57%
CIP System AMS EVAP
1% 2%
Fig. 4. Contribution of different unit processes to the total GWP associated with the
production of 1 kg bio-SAC.
Fig. 6. Contribution analysis of each unit process to waste heat indicator per 1 kg of
bio-SAC.
Corporation, 2011).
3.5. Scenario analyses
Three scenarios analyses were considered to test the choice of
feedstock, production route and electricity grid mix as demon-
strated in Figs. 7, 8 and 9. The LCIA categories used were non-ren
fossil CED and GWP.
3.5.1. Feedstock
By default, Myriant uses a feedstock of 1.66 kg of sorghum grains
and 1.33  102 kg dextrose to produce 1 kg of bio-SAC. For vari-
6% ation, 1.82 kg of dextrose is considered instead as suggested by
ClarificaƟon Myriant Corporation. The production of bio-SAC from dextrose
4% caused the GWP and non-ren fossil CED values to increase by 72%
FiltraƟon and 86% respectively (Fig. 7). This is attributable to the fact that the
4% production of dextrose is an energy intensive process (Tsiropoulos
Salt SeparaƟon
et al., 2013). While sorghum is a raw feedstock that is used directly
5% without any prior major processing. For this reason, the use of any
FiltraƟon produced feedstock (e.g., dextrose) for the production of bio-SAC in
3% particular and bio-based chemicals in general, would be a poor
Polishing alternative to raw feedstock (e.g., sorghum) with regard to GWP
2% and non-ren CED in particular and energy consumption in general.
SAC EvaporaƟon
8% 3.5.2. Production route (petroleum vs. bio)
This paper discusses the changes in environmental and energy
profiles as a result of producing succinic acid petrochemically
instead of the bio-based route presented in this paper. Petroleum

200%
172%
ComparaƟve Results (%)
100%
100%
0%
GWP
Sorghum & Dextrose
Fig. 7. Scenario analysis results for dextrose vs. sorghum-dextrose feedstock.
-based SAC is produced in two stages; the catalytical hydrogenation
of maleic anhydride followed by the hydrolysis of succinic anhy-
dride. These processes are highly energy intensive (Patel et al.,
2006; Jentsch et al., 1997). The values of GWP and non-ren CED of
petrochemically produced SAC are obtained from an LCA study by
Moussa et al. (2012). Results indicate that petroleum-based SAC has
higher values of GWP and non-ren CED in comparison to bio-SAC by
385% and 1014%, respectively as demonstrated in Fig. 8.
3.5.3. Electricity
This paper uses the SERC electricity grid mix, consistent with the
location of the bio-SAC production facility in Louisiana, USA. As a
variation, this paper assumes that the bio-SAC production is
geographically located in Ontario, Canada instead of its original
location. Such a scenario assumes that all the production processes
are technologically identical except for their choice of the elec-
tricity mix. Data on the electricity grid mix by fuel type in Ontario
are obtained from the Independent Electricity System Operator
IESO (2012) as described in Table 5.
Results indicate that bio-SAC produced in Ontario, Canada will
have lower values for GWP (100a) by 180% and non-ren CED by
268% as illustred in Fig. 9. This can be explained by the fact that in
Ontario, Canada, electricity from fossil sources accounts for only
17.4% (2.8% coal), while in Louisiana, the USA it accounts for 69.9%
(49.6% coal). The magnitude of change in results is significant, thus
the electricity mix has a significant influence on the environmental
profile and energy management scenarios of bio-SAC in particular
and bio-based materials in general.
1200%
ComparaƟve Results (%)
800%
385%
400%
100%
0%
GWP
Bio-SAC
Fig. 8. Scenario analysis results for petroleum-based SAC vs. bio-based SAC.
H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769 767
186% Table 5
Ontario 2012 electricity supply mix by fuel type (IESO, 2012).
Natural Gas Bituminous coal Lignite coal Hydro Nuclear Wind Other
14.6% 2.7% 0.1% 22.3% 56.4% 3.0% 0.8%
*Other includes; wood waste, biogas, etc.
100%
100% 100%
100%
0%
ComparaƟve Results (%)
Non-ren Fossil CED
Dextrose
-100%
-180%
-200%
-268%
-300%
GWP Non-ren Fossil CED
SERC Electricity Mix Ontario, CA Electricity Mix
Fig. 9. Scenario analysis of Ontario, CA electricity grid mix SERC electricity grid mix.
4. Conclusion
The original objectives of this LCA study (Section 1.1) are suc-
cessfully assessed, identified and quantified. The environmental
and energy performances of the bio-SAC understudy are assessed
using three environmental and energy indicators. Three areas are
explored specifically: the areas of significance in the production of
bio-SAC (Figs. 3, 5 and 6), the potential opportunities for enhancing
the energy and environmental performances of bio-SAC (Figs. 7 and
9), and a comparison with petroleum counterparts in current in-
dustrial use (Fig. 8).
Electricity use and heat generation were identified as the two
areas of significance and influence on the energy and environ-
mental profiles of Myriant bio-SAC. There is a potential to enhance
both profiles through implementing improvements on energy use
(electricity and heat) and the efficiency of the production process.
Baitz et al. (2011) indicate that the most widely used approaches to
improve the energy management system of a chemical product are
to employ alternative energy sources, use different feedstocks, or
apply varying production routes and technologies. The results of
this paper indicate that using a different feedstock or applying
different production routes and technologies may not be the best
options. Changing the feedstock could increase GWP and non-
renewable CED (Fig. 7). Also, Myriant uses state-of-the-art tech-
nologies and production routes (Myriant Corporation, 2011).
1044% Using an alternative energy source means accessing an elec-
tricity grid mix with a better environmental profile than the SERC
mix, thus accessing other forms of primary energy. The results of
the scenario analysis (Fig. 9) indicate that reducing the use of non-
ren fossil energy would drastically improve both the environmental
and energy profiles of the produced bio-SAC. Given the novelty of
bio-based technologies in general, it is relevant to consider whether
the choice of electricity mix might be a factor for industries to
consider for improving the energy and environmental perfor-
100% mances of bio-based materials (Collet et al., 2011). On the other
hand, using a different energy source instead of natural gas to
Non-ren fossil CED generate heat for industrial purposes, is not a technically viable
option since all of the other options may either have an inferior
Petroleum-based SAC
energy performance (e.g., electricity), or inferior environmental
performance (e.g., coal) (Khoo et al., 2010).
768 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769
The methodology proposed in this paper can also be used to
understand the potential energy management significance and
benefits of other bio-based materials, through identifying the
environmental impacts of the different designs and production
stages, processes, and flows used on the environmental perfor-
mance of the bio-based materials and the energy efficiency of its
production systems.
The intention of this study is not to provide an absolute answer
or a conclusive result, yet, it is expected to contribute to the general
knowledge and understanding of the potential environmental im-
pacts associated with the production of bio-based materials. The
findings of this study in particular and any other LCA studies in
general, are not generalizable, unless, the significance of many
different variables is considered.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Myriant Corporation for their
support and cooperation.
References
Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., Panichelli, L., Villegas, J.-D., 2008. Estimating Energy
and Greenhouse Gas Balance of Biofuels. Concepts and Methodologies. Ecole
Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Accenture, 2012. Sustainable Energy for All: Opportunities for the Pharmaceutical
and Biotechnology Industry. Global Nations Global Impact. Retrieved from
www.accenture.com.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2008, December 11. Biomass Inventory Mapping
and Analysis Tool (BIMAT). Retrieved from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada:
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/.
Althaus, H.-J., Hischier, R., Osses, M., Primas, A., Hellweg, S., Jungbluth, N.,
Chudacoff, M., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Chemicals. Ecoinvent Report No. 8.
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Ecoinvent Centre, Dübendorf,
Switzerland.
Associates, Franklin, 2010. Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Inventory of Nine Plastics
Resins and Four Polyurethane. The Plastics Division of The American Chemistry
Council, Kansas.
Bade, R., Parkin, M., 2013. Foundations of Economics Sixth Edition. Pearson Edu-
cation, Inc, New Jersey.
Bai, L., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation from Low Temperature
Waste Heat. The Influence of Working Fluid. Norwegian University of Science
and Technology. Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Trondheim,
Norway (Master's Thesis).
Baitz, M., Partl, J., Braube, A., Brauner, E., 2011. White Paper: Improving the Envi-
ronmental Performance of Chemical Products. PE International AG, Leinfelden-
Echterdingen, Germany. Retrieved from: http://www.pe-international.com/.
Baker, J.W., Lepech, M.D., 2009. Treatment of Uncertainties in Life Cycle Assessment.
10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability. International
Association for Structural Safety and Reliability (IASSAR), Osaka, Japan.
Retrieved from. http://www.stanford.edu/~mlepech/pubs/icossar.lca.
uncertainty.09.pdf.
Barker, T., 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Valencia, Spain.
BCS Incorporated, 2008. Waste Heat Recovery: Technology and Opportunities in the
U.S. Industry. Department of Energy. Industrial Technologies Program, Laurel,
Maryland.
BCS Incorporated, 2010. Summary of Characteristics and Energy Efficiency Demand-
side Management Programs in the Southeastern United States. The U.S.
Department of Energy - Industrial Technologies Program, Laurel, USA.
Blanco, G., Gerlagh, R., Suh, S., 2013. Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC 5th
Assessment Report “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change”.
Chapter 5: Drivers, Trends and Mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bradley, D., Bradburn, K., 2010. Canada Report on Bioenergy 2010. Ottawa: Climate
Change Solutions. Retrieved from: http://www.canbio.ca/.
Bundela, P., Chawla, V., 2010. Sustainable development through waste heat recov-
ery. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 6 (1), 83e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/
ajessp.2010.83.89.
Environment Canada, 2011, June 23. Fuel Combustion. Environment Canada.
Retrieved from: http://www.ec.gc.ca.
Cefic, 2014. The European Chemical Industry: Facts and Figures 2013. The European
Chemical Industry (Cefic), Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from: www.cefic.org.
Collet, P., Helias, A., Lardon, L., Ras, M., Goy, R.-A., Steyer, J.-P., 2011. Life-cycle
assessment of microalgae culture coupled to biogas production. Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (1), 207e214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.154.
ExxonMobil, 2014. The Outlook for Energy: a View to 2040. Exxon Mobil Corpo-
ration, Irving, Texas. Retrieved from: www.exxonmobil.com.
Faist-Emmenegger, M., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Tuchschmid, M., 2007a. Erdgas.
Ecoinvent Report No. 6-V, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Ecoin-
vent Centre, Villigen, Switzerland.
Faist-Emmenegger, M., Dinkel, F., Stettler, C., Doka, G., Chudacoff, M., Dauriat, A.,
et al., 2007b. In: Jungbluth, N. (Ed.), Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy.
Ecoinvent Report No. 17, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. (ecoinvent
centre), Uster, Switzerland.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R., et al.,
2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Ecoinvent
Report No. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf,
Switzerland.
Gallezot, P., 2012. Conversion of biomass to selected chemical products. Chem. Soc.
Rev. 41, 1538e1558.
Gironi, F., Piemonte, V., 2011. Life cycle assessment of polylactic acid and poly-
ethylene terephthalate bottles for drinking water. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy
30 (3), 459e468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10490.
Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., de Schryver, A., Vieira, M., 2008. SimaPro 7 Database
Manual. Methods Library. PRe  Consultants, The Netherlands.
Goedkoop, M., De Schryver, A., Oele, M., Durksz, S., de Roest, D., 2010. Introduction
to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRe  Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Hammerschlag, R., 2006. Ethanol's energy return on investment: a survey of the
literature 1990-Present. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (6), 1720e1744.
Haufe, J., Carus, M., 2011. Hemp Fibres for Green Products - an Assessment of Life
Cycle Studies on Hemp Fibre Applications. European Industrial Hemp Associ-
ation (EIHA). Nova-Institute GmbH, Hürth, Germany. Retrieved from: www.
nova-institute.eu.
Hermes, Euler, 2013. Chemical Industry Outlook. Version 02. Euler Hermes North
America, Owings Mills, MD. Retrieved from: www.eulerhermes.us.
Huijbregts, M.A., Rombouts, L.J., Hellweg, S., Frischkecht, R., Hendriks, A.J., van de
Meent, D., et al., 2006. Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for
the environmental performance of products? Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (3),
641e648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es051689g.
Independent Electricity System Operator [IESO], 2012, January 06. Composition of
Ontario's Electricity Supply Mix Continues to Change: Consumer Response
Supports Reliability. Retrieved from Independent Electricity System Operator:
http://www.ieso.ca.
ISO, 2006. ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Jentsch, J.-D., Martin, G., & Zirngiebl, E. (1997). Patent No. 5616730. Germany.
Khoo, H.H., Tan, R.B., Chng, K.W., 2010. Environmental impacts of conventional
plastic and bio-based carrier bags. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (3), 284e293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0162-9.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2002. Allocation procedcure in ethanol production system for
corn grain. I. System expansion. Int. J. Life Cycle Assesmsnet 7 (4), 237e243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2002.05.081.
KPMG, 2010. The Outlook for the US Chemical Industry. KPMG International
Cooperative, USA. Retrieved from: www.kpmg.com/.
Markets and Markets, 2012, March 09. MarketsandMarkets: Global Succinic Acid
Market Worth $496.0 Million by 2016. Retrieved from marketsandmarkets:
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/succinic-acid.asp.
Mata, T.M., Smith, R.L., Young, D.M., Costa, C.A., 2003. Evaluating the environmental
friendliness, economics and energy efficiency of chemical processes; heat
integration. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 5 (3), 302e309. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10098-003-0203-1.
Maxwell, G.R., 2004. Synthetic Nitrogen Applications: a Practical Guide to the
Products and Processes. Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York: Kluwer.
Mila
i Canals, L., Azapagic, A., Doka, G., Jefferies, D., King, H., Mutel, C., et al., 2011.
Approaches for addressing life cycle assessment data gaps for bio-based
products. J. Industrial Ecol. 15 (5), 707e725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2011.00369.x.
Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2013. Life cycle assessment of bio-based
products: a disposable diper case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (5),
1036e1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0556-6.
Moussa, H., Young, S.B., Gerand, Y., 2012. Polybutylene succinate life cycle assess-
ment variations and variables: environmental and sustainability impact mea-
surement. American institute of chemical engineers (AIChE). In: 2012
International Congress on Energy. American Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AIChE), Pittsburgh.
Myriant Corporation, 2011. Form S-1 Registration Statement under the Securities
Act of 1933: Myriant Corporation. United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, Washington, D.C.. Retrieved from. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/
edgar/data/1485026/000095012311054952/b86680sv1.htm
Myriant Corporation, 2013. Bio-succinic Acid Fact Sheet. Retrieved from Myriant
Corporation: http://www.myriant.com.
Nemecek, T., K€ agi, T., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Sys-
tems. Ecoinvent Report No. 15, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Asessment.
ecoinvent Centre, Zurich and Dubendorf, Switzerland.
Nyboer, J., Bennett, M., 2014. Energy Use and Related Data; Canadian Chemistry
Industry 1990 to 2012. Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Retrieved from. http://www.canadianchemistry.ca/.
Patel, M., Crank, M., Domburg, V., Hermann, B., Roes, L., Husing, B., et al., 2006.
Medium and Long-term Opportunities and Risks of the Biotechnological Pro-
duction of Bulk Chemicals from Renewable Resources - the Potential of White
Biotechnology - the BREW Project. Utrecht University under the European
 H.I. Moussa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 761e769
Commission's GROWTH Programme (DG Research), Utrecht. Retrieved from.
http://brew.geo.uu.nl/BREW_Final_Report_September_2006.pdf.
Patt, J.J., Banholzer, W.F., 2009. Improving energy efficiency in the chemical in-
dustry. Bridge 39 (2), 16e21. Retrieved from. http://www.nae.edu/.
Pilz, H., Brandt, B., Fehringer, R., 2010. The Impact of Plastics on Life Cycle Energy
Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe. Summary Report. As-
sociation of Plastics Manufacturers, Vienna, Austria.
PRe Consultants, 2010. Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRe  Consultants, The
Netherlands.
La Rosa, A.D., Cozza, G., Latteri, A., Mancini, G., Recca, A., Cicala, G., 2013.
A comparative life cycle assessment of a composite component for automotive.
In: Pierucci, S., Klemes, J.J. (Eds.), 11th International Conference on Chemical
and Process Engineering (ICheaP-11). 32, pp. 1723e1728. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3303/CET1332288. Milan, Italy: AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
Song, H., Lee, S.-Y., 2009. Production of succinic acid by bacterial fermentation.
Enzyme Microb. Technol. 39 (3), 361e523.
Sutter, J., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Petrochemical Solvents Data v2.0. Ecoinvent
Report No. 22. Ecoinvent centre - Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
Dübendorf, Uster - Switzerland.
Tsiropoulos, I., Cok, B., Patel, M.K., 2013. Energy and greenhouse gas assessment of
European glucose production from corn e a multiple allocation approach for a
key ingredient of the bio-based economy. J. Clean. Prod. 43, 182e190. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.035.
United States Department of Energy [U.S. DOE], 2004. Technology Roadmap. Energy
Loss Reduction and Recovery in Industrial Energy Systems. United States
Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Retrieved from. http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/.
United States Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA], 2012, October 02.
Electricity. 2011: EIA-923. Retrieved from United States Energy Information
Administration: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.
769
United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2011, February 09. High
Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases. Retrieved from United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html.
Upadhyaya, S., 2010. Compilation of Energy Statistics for Economic Analysis. United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna, Austria.
Wan, C., Li, Y., Shahbazi, A., Xiu, S., 2008. Succinic acid production from cheese whey
using actinobacillus succinogenes 130 Z. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 145,
111e119.
Wang, M., Saricks, C., Santini, D., 1999. Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-cycle
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Center for Transporation Research -
Argonne National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, Chicago.
Retrieved from. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/58.pdf.
Weidema, B.P., Wesnæs, M.S., 1996. Data quality management for life cycle inven-
toriesdan example of using data quality indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 4 (3e4),
167e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1.
Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Brand~ ao, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B., Patel, M.K.,
2012. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. Ind. Ecol. 16
(Suppl. s1), S169eS181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00468.x.
Wood, S.M., Layzell, D.B., 2003. A Canadian Biomass Inventory: Feedstocks for a Bio-
based Economy. Final Report. Industry Canada, Ottawa.
€ni, H., Gauch, M., Hischier, R., Wa
Zah, R., Bo €ger, L., 2007. Life Cycle Assessment of
Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels - Executive
Summary. Empa Technology and Society Lab, Bern, Switzerland.
Zhang, L., Akiyama, T., 2009. How to recuperate industrial waste heat beyond time
and space. Int. J. Exergy 6 (2), 214e227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/
IJEX.2009.023999.
Zhang, G.J., Cai, M., Hu, A., 2013. Energy consumption and the unexplained winter
warming over northern Asia and North America. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (5),
466e470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1803.